A 19-year-old ultra-Orthodox youth was attacked by two men of Middle Eastern descent in Sweden on Saturday. The Hasidic youth was walking on a street in the city of Davos, where he was vacationing with his family, who live in London.
As he was walking down the street, two men, aged between 20 and 25, approached him and proceeded to strike him in the face, knock off his kippah, spit on him and shout “Free Palestine,” at him.
The Hasidic youth told ultra-Orthodox news outlet Behadrei Haredim that a non-Jewish passerby intervened on his behalf, picked up his kippah and returned it to him. He added he had a few moments to regain his composure thanks to the assistance. Afterward, he ran toward the hotel where his family was staying.
The assaulted youth mentioned that the two men who beat him weren’t residents of Switzerland. “They’re definitely of Middle Eastern origin, they chased after me, but when I reached the hotel, they left because they saw that there were many people there,” he said.
Meanwhile, the local police were called to the scene. The officers who arrived took his statement and left the hotel. The 19-year-old mentioned the person who picked up his kippah and helped him provided his phone number to give to the police if they wanted to take his testimony and it was passed on to the police.
The youth said that he wasn’t seriously injured and that he “feels okay,” but doesn’t plan to walk the area alone anymore. On Friday, he went to the police station with his father to provide additional testimony about the violence he suffered at the hands of the two antisemitic attackers.
An argument between two 25 and 31-year-old asylum seekers, which had already started on Thursday, escalated on Friday evening. According to the police, the duo met shortly after 7pm in front of a supermarket in Jahnstrasse, where the argument began again. In the course of the argument, the 31-year-old Gambian seriously injured the 25-year-old Somali with a knife. A police patrol that happened to be on the scene intervened and arrested the 31-year-old for the time being. An ambulance took the seriously injured man to a hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries later that evening. The circumstances are still completely unclear and are currently under investigation by the Ravensburg Criminal Investigation Department.
On today’s #NCFNewspeak, NCF Director Peter Whittle, Senior Fellows Dr. Philip Kiszely and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and Stand Up To Woke’s Amy Gallagher discuss: * Labour wants to reverse court and Conservative government decision not to record non-crime hate incidents * 42% of Conservatives want to merge with Reform * Australian Courts landmark Trans verdict is a threat to women’s spaces
Imagine life in the near future. A man resides alone in a tiny apartment. He would prefer to be married, but the State considers that antiquated institution “patriarchal” and “white supremacist.” He would prefer to have children, but he can’t afford them. Besides, his yearly carbon allowance is insufficient to cover another resource-wasting human being.
He has never owned anything. He rents his bedroom, his furnishings, and his meager entertainments. Each month, a digital account associated with his digital ID receives a number of central bank digital currency units. How much he receives depends upon the number of hours he works at his government job, how much the government values his work, how much the government taxes him for the privilege of using public infrastructure, and how much of his income the government decides should be redistributed to other citizens in need. After taxes, rents, utilities, and other assorted municipal, state, federal, and international fees are deducted from his earnings, he has little — if any — discretionary income.
If he chooses to save that income to invest in his future, the government informs him that his central bank digital currency units disappear within ninety days. If he tries to purchase something that the government has banned, he forfeits what he currently has. If he does something that the government deems contrary to his well-being, his social credit score decreases, and a fraction of his discretionary income disappears. Every few weeks, a digital doctor (running on artificial intelligence) appears on the video screen in his apartment with a detailed list of all the “unhealthy” things he has done since their last interaction. He is informed that a portion of his temporary savings will be redistributed to citizens with healthier habits. His A.I. health monitor tells him that he must immediately report to the closest pharmaceutical distribution center so that he can be injected with the latest “vaccines.” Failure to do so will result in the deactivation of all electronic entertainment devices and a permanent mark on his social credit record.
He is unhappy, and because the State’s A.I. supervisor has detected his unhappiness, the display monitor in his apartment encourages him to find personal meaning by “joining the fight against global warming.” For a while, he does just that. He attends community meetings in his apartment building where government officials talk about the importance of “saving the planet” by “owning nothing.” He chats with anonymous strangers (bots?) on the State’s social media platform, and they all agree that the sacrifices they’re making to save the world are definitely worth it. He wakes up one morning to discover that his social credit score has risen and that he has been rewarded with a few extra central bank digital currency units. Still, our future man remains unhappy.
Then one day sirens blare, and his apartment monitor flashes with breaking news: the country is at war. He listens intently but can’t figure out which foreign nations are attacking. The trusted news anchors tell him that peace, prosperity, and freedom are all at risk. He steps outside his tiny apartment to find other solitary renters fired up and talking excitedly about the battles to come. He walks back inside to find his A.I. supervisor informing him that he has been personally selected to protect the homeland from its enemies. For the first time in many years, our future man feels alive.
He soon finds himself in boot camp, where he enjoys regular exercise, discipline, and camaraderie. Six months later, he and his new friends are shipped overseas. Strangely, in all this time, nobody has explained whom they will actually be fighting. All he knows is that they’re at war with “the authoritarians” who wish to “take our democracy.” There is anticipation in his camp and endless talk of adventure. Then, when everyone least expects it, a thunderous swarm of drones attacks from overhead. Nobody has time to react. Explosions seem to come from out of nowhere. He sees the bodies of his friends torn to pieces. Then everything goes dark.
He awakes in a hospital severely injured, is called a hero, and is later sent home. When he arrives, he notices breadlines outside the government’s genetically engineered food distribution centers. He hears a beggar on the street joke that they should call them “insect-lines,” since that’s all there is to eat. He learns that someone else has moved into his old apartment, but he is offered a new one because of his military service. It is smaller and has even fewer furnishings than the one he lost. He realizes that most of his former neighbors never returned from war and that many of the newcomers now living in their apartments look and sound like those people he was told to fight overseas. Nothing makes sense. His injuries torment him. He feels even more lost and lonely than before he went to war. His A.I. supervisor informs him that he has been added to a list of people considered “potential domestic terrorists.” Remaining on this list will make it hard for him to work and live.
Then, one day, his digital doctor asks if he would like some assistance in ending his life peacefully. “You can save others,” he is told, “by permanently reducing your carbon footprint.” In agony, he wonders, “How did we get here?”
The shortest answer to our future friend is this: governments abandoned sound money. They replaced gold coins with paper currencies. They made it illegal for ordinary citizens to conduct business freely and demanded that government-issued bills be used in economic transactions. Then they gave private central banks the authority to print these paper bills whenever they determined that doing so would be good for the economy.
Whose economy do wealthy central bankers protect — Wall Street’s or that of the working class? Although putatively charged with financial duties to maximize employment and minimize inflation, central banks function as market manipulators and money printers for overspending governments. By increasing the supply of paper currency, the price of consumer goods rises. However, the numerical price of stock market shares also goes up. These capital assets do not gain any real value, but their rising prices give the illusion of economic growth. Many bad companies that would never survive in a free market become lucrative investment opportunities in fake markets. Easy money sustains companies that produce no market value. Who loses most in this artificial arrangement? The poorest people who have no stocks and only limited cash savings. They have watched the hundred-dollar bill hidden under their mattresses lose most of its value over the last fifty years.
Neither fiat currencies nor central banks have any functional place in free societies. Governments that manipulate the value of money rig markets and steal from the working poor. The wealthiest end up owning everything, while everyone else tries to balance life precariously on a tightrope of consumer debts, mortgages, long-term loans, and the growing prospect of insolvency. This world that financial and political elites have built is unsustainable. It is also a kind of economic slavery.
Because it is unsustainable, those who have benefited most from its creation will do anything they must to survive its collapse. A crashing dollar does not matter if those who control the financial system today control the central bank digital currencies of tomorrow. Gross inequality and rampant poverty do not matter if governments can convince unhappy citizens that climate change, disease, and war require them to own less and sacrifice more. Growing public anger does not matter if those with armies can censor speech, throttle food supplies, foment wars, and imprison dissidents.
Ponder this: how much of the story above seems foreign, and how much of it seems painfully familiar? Your answer tells us just how much time we have left.
An investigation by the German outlet Apollo Newsrevealed the existence of an online platform funded by the German government and the European Union, one of the aims of which is to provide practical and legal advice to migrants so that they can oppose their possible deportation, in the name of a “right to remain for all” on German soil.
The site, called Handbook Germany, takes the form of an information site aimed at immigrants arriving on German soil, with an apparently harmless programme: ‘orientieren—informieren—austauschen’ (find your way around, get informed, exchange information).
But on closer inspection, the site turns out to be a weapon in the service of a militant and openly declared political programme: “against deportations and for the right to freedom of movement for all.”
The Apollo News investigation shows that the site provides a whole range of practical advice for asylum seekers to enable them to avoid imminent deportation, giving them information on the conditions that prevent a deportation from being carried out—for example by playing on the ‘disappearance’ of a child, since a family with a missing child cannot be deported.
If an asylum application is rejected, the Handbook Germany site encourages legal recourse: take legal action against the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees or lodge a complaint, bearing in mind that “the costs may be covered by the State.” Refugee applicants are even provided with contacts for sympathetic advice centres and lawyers.
But there’s more. In the event that the application for deportation is approved, the site goes so far as to promote physical resistance, advising rejected applicants to defend themselves on the plane “by not sitting on the plane and making it clear that they are not taking the plane of their own free will.” Handbook Germany also recommends, in this case, active resistance by passengers in support of the migrants and suggests, with a link to the website of the ‘Abschiebungen stoppen. Bleiberecht für alle’ initiative, to which Handbook Germany makes reference. Flyers can be downloaded that have been specially designed for this kind of situation. Nothing less than a complete agitprop kit for the public.
The existence of such a site is hardly surprising: in Germany, as elsewhere, there are many pro-immigration associations and lobbies seeking to circumvent the law and obtain the right for migrants to remain on the soil of the host country at any price, even in violation of the law. The shocking nature of the Handbook Germany site stems from the support it receives from numerous German public institutions. The impressum page shows a panel of prestigious institutions supporting the editorial team (of which there are only two German-sounding names in the fifteen or so members): the European Union, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Office for Migration, Refugees and Integration, all at the instigation of the Federal Parliament.
In the run-up to the forthcoming state elections, the federal German government is seeking to convince voters of its renewed firmness on migration policy. There is clearly an urgent need for better control of the agencies that deal with asylum and migration and receive public funding to do so.
The French language is on the decline in Europe, but since the last European elections, one phrase has been on everybody’s lips in Brussels: cordon sanitaire. You can hear it non-stop in 24 official accents, echoing through every corridor and pressroom. It even appears written in black and white on official European Parliament documents. It is undoubtedly the slogan of the summer and will likely become the motto of this entire legislature.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a cordon sanitaire is “a guarded line preventing anyone from leaving an area infected by a disease and thus spreadingit.” Funny. We thought its purpose was to keep millions of voters out of the democratic game, not to confine self-proclaimed righteous minds within a fortress, but never mind. Yet, what we all agree upon is that in politically correct times, applying such a toxic notion to a specific group would be highly offensive, wouldn’t it? Of course—except when it comes to one-third of European voters. Labelling them as “far Right” seems to justify treating their opinions and feelings like the Ebola virus. But we are not talking about an isolated case under quarantine; we are talking about millions of voters. The architects of this cordon sanitaire are not facing a social disease—they are being confronted by a pandemic.
The problem with pandemics is that they trigger movements of panic and lead to absurd and arrogant behaviours. True, the exclusion of right-wing parties by a Grosse (and clearly left-leaning) Koalition in the European Parliament is nothing new, as it has been the foundation of a well-established consensus that drives the European Union for decades now. The fear of an imaginary extreme Right is also the best alibi to justify this atypical, yet hegemonic, political alliance ranging from the centre-right to the far Left. It has been placidly applied for years assuming that the “populist” disease would never turn into a pandemic. But it did. Voters have been sending more than just wake-up calls for years, and after the last European elections, the potential rise of a conservative and sovereigntist wave sparked panic among the usual suspects. Instead of acknowledging voters’ sentiments, they doubled down on their dogmas.
As a result, the first weeks of the newly elected Parliament saw an implacable implementation of the cordon sanitaire, specifically targeting the new nemesis of the European establishment: the Patriots for Europe, the third-largest party in the chamber and the coalition’s favourite target. This wave of panic particularly affected the European People’s Party, which now finds itself between a rock and a hard place, struggling to explain to its voters why they are the cornerstone of a coalition that, in Brussels and Strasbourg, delivers the opposite of what they promised back home. The only solution to keep gaslighting their own troops and hide their political disloyalty is to overplay the imaginary threat of an “anti-European, populist, far-right.” So much so that they spontaneously opted for the extreme Left, just to exclude the Patriots for Europe from any position they are entitled too. Cordon sanitaire, whatever it takes.
The most appalling example of this political schizophrenia was the election of Younous Omarjee, from the French subversive extremist party La France Insoumise, as Vice-President the European Parliament, at the expense of Patriot for Europe’s Fabrice Leggeri. Thanks to its votes, the EPP outvoted a member of the third group just to elect a representative of the ultra-minoritarian extreme Left. And never mind if a couple of days later, the antisemitic rising star of this extreme Left party, Rima Hassan, appeared to threaten EPP’s François Xavier Bellamy, to the extent that he took legal action. Believe it or not, despite this, Manfred Weber prefers to side with a party rife with extremists, convicted criminals and bullies, just to be the most zealous in enforcing the cordon sanitaire.
Ursula von der Leyen took a similar approached to secure her re-election. Despite a controverted mandate, she managed to be comfortably reappointed on a very similar programme by leaning even more to the Left and courting the Greens, the big losers of the last elections, to secure the votes that her own party was reluctant to provide. At what cost? Large concessions to the Socialists, Liberals, and Greens, and a strict enforcement of the cordon sanitaire, including forcing EU civil servants to boycott the Hungarian Presidency. It may be childish, but it proved effective for remaining in the Berlaymont during times of panic.
The problem, however, is that this seemingly virtuous and orchestrated cordon sanitaire does little to conceal its real raison d’être: to cover up the panic towards voters and democracy. The shameful vision of an elite locking themselves behind their own certainties says much more about their arrogance than it does about the alleged extremism of millions of voters expressing their discontent. Behind their ideological barricades, they continue to wait for the “far-right” wave to disappear, while it inexorably grows. In the meantime, they turn a blind eye to the cancer growing within their own ranks, whether it is antisemitism, Islamist sympathies, green dogmatism, illegal migration, insecurity or wokeism.
The dictionary is right: a cordon sanitaire is a line preventing infected people from leaving a specific area. The others—the fortunate ones who are excluded from this ring of superiority and sectarism, those who observe with perplexity this shameful behaviour—are on the right side of the cordon sanitaire.
A podcast episode of Hoss and Hopf had to be deleted by court order because the moderators called a trans-identified man “a man” and used male pronouns to refer to him. The podcasters may be facing potential prison time or a fine of up to €250,000.
In the controversial podcast episode, the hosts discussed the case of Laura Holstein, formerly known as Nicolas. Holstein, a balding male who now identifies as a “woman,” has made multiple headlines over the past few months related to him demanding access to female spaces. Most recently, Holstein, with the support of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, has been pursuing legal action against a female-only gym in Bavaria.
But the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court has now stopped in to order the censorship of the Hoss and Hopf episode related to Holstein. The hosts, Kiarash Hossainpour and Philip Hopf, have also been prohibited from referring to Holstein as a man and using male pronouns for him.
Unser Podcast wurde zensiert: Welcome to Germany. 🇩🇪
Unsere Podcast-Episode über das Rechtsdrama einer Person, die biologisch männlich geboren wurde, aber in ein Frauen-Fitnessstudio wollte – wohlgemerkt mit Unterstützung der Unabhängigen Bundesbeauftragten für… pic.twitter.com/JhjOsX4JTm
In a post to social media, Hossainpour posted screenshots of the letter they received from the court. Among the orders made in the document are that the two hosts are prohibited from “distributing, publishing or having third parties distribute or publish” statements that correctly sex Holstein.
Among those statements include that Holstein is a “man who feels [he is] in the wrong body,” and that “he still has his dick.”
“Our podcast [Hoss and Hopf] was censored: Welcome to Germany. Our podcast episode about the legal drama of a person who was born biologically male but wanted to go to a women’s gym – with the support of the Independent Federal Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination – is now offline,” he wrote.
Laura Holstein.
In the court’s letter, the hosts were accused of violating Holstein’s “personal rights” by referring to him as male, because he is “legally and socially recognized as a woman.”
Hossainpour explained further: “It is noteworthy that the court saw an ‘extraordinary urgency’ here – as if the use of biologically correct terms represented an immediate danger that could not be postponed. One inevitably wonders whether other, perhaps actually urgent cases had to take a back seat for this.”
To his audience, Hossainpour posed a question about the impact of gender ideology on observable reality.
“The questions that arise are as explosive as they are uncomfortable: How should a society function in which biological realities and legal fictions come into such a blatant contradiction? What if someone who appears to be clearly male is considered a woman by legal decree and thus gains access to spaces that were traditionally reserved for women?”
In addition to being forced to delete the episode, the hosts are facing a €250,000 fine for violating the law and, if this cannot be paid, up to six months in prison. If the offense is repeated, they could be handed a two year prison sentence.
As a result of the court ruling, the Hoss and Hopf episode referring to Holstein has been deleted, and the hosts are unsure as to whether they should try to appeal in court out of fear of further censorship. The men are asking their German fans and followers to “please delete all” related content, quotes, TikTok videos, and Instagram reels.
As previously reported by Reduxx, Holstein has a long history of attempting to use his self-declared gender identity to access women’s spaces.
In June the owner of the Ladys First, a female-only gym in Bavaria, denied Holstein membership and permission to enter the women’s locker room. The owner, Doris Lange, cited women’s discomfort with Holstein’s presence, especially as a number of her clients were Muslim women who had religious prohibitions from having intimate parts of their bodies viewed by males.
A women's gym in Bavaria has been ordered to pay a balding trans-identified male €1000 in compensation after refusing to allow him in the showers.
The Federal Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination ruled that Laura Holstein had suffered "personal injury."https://t.co/2XRmMRGjTC
Following Lange’s refusal, Holstein contacted the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency and the Commissioner for Anti-Discrimination, Ferda Ataman, who demanded Lange pay Holstein €1,000 in compensation.
Just a few weeks later, Lange received a letter from Holstein’s lawyers demanding an additional €2,500 in damages because he was denied membership in her women’s fitness studio.
According to Emma Magazine, there are 14 gyms in the city of Erlangen where women and men can train together, but Lange’s fitness studio is the only one exclusively reserved for women. This has lead many to speculate that Holstein specifically targeted the female-only space rather than go to a gym where he was welcome.
As previously reported by Reduxx, a now-deleted Main Post article revealed that Holstein was the first trans-identified male to play in a women’s football league and that he is sharing the dressing room with women and girls.
Since some of the players are still minors, a shower schedule was reportedly created for him so that he does not shower with the teens.
A balding trans-identified will be allowed to play in a women's football league in Germany, months before he is set to change his legal sex to "female."
Players have been warned that they may be punished for "transphobic" remarks about Laura Holstein.https://t.co/eReYRlKBJA
However, according to pro-trans podcast Y-Kollektiv, after Holstein was accepted into the women’s soccer team by the coach, female football players complained and stated that they did not want to share the dressing room with him.
He has also been accused of not abiding by the shower schedule that was created to accommodate him which stipulated that he must shower before the females do.
This is not the first ruling by the Frankfurt regional court in favor of Holstein. German outlet NiUS has also been banned from labeling Holstein a man and referring to him using male pronounce.
In its decision, the court criticized NiUS’s coverage of Holstein’s cases, in particular targeting an article in which NiUS wrote: “[The] Government wants €1,000 fine from a women’s gym because it won’t let a man into their shower.” The court ruled that the use of male pronouns for Holstein was an “attack on human dignity.”
It is not yet known whether NiUS will appeal the court’s decision, but unlike the Hoss & Hopf podcast episode, the article is still online.
Vermont’s Department of Health has published a flyer advising people not to use the terms “daughter” or “son,” but “child” or “kid” instead as more “inclusive” terms.
The Vermont Department of Health put out a post informing families that they shouldn't call their child "son" or "daughter" because it isn't "inclusive" enough.
The health agency considers the terms “child” and “kid” to be preferential because they are “gender-neutral” and “can describe a child who may not be someone’s legal son or daughter.”
The flyer also advises Vermont citizens to use the simple term “family” instead of “extended family,” since “often grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are important parts of a core family unit.”
“When talking about family, it’s important to use terms that cover the many versions of what family can look like,” wrote the Vermont health department’s Facebook page on Wednesday when posting the flyer.
The post was “liked” and “loved” by many, but most reactions were of “laughing” at the absurdity of the advice.
Vermont’s Department of Health defended the post, saying that it “was intended to encourage using inclusive language when you don’t know someone’s family situation.”
The advisory continued to receive strong backlash, however, with one man, Luke Ortega, advising, “Maybe you should focus on health & not policing speech.”
The X account Bostonians Against Mayor Wu called the advisory “wokeism at its finest.”
Wayne Ocker denounced Vermont’s Department of Health as an “enemy of traditional families.”
The advisory was reposted by Not the Bee, which specializes in sharing news so outlandish that it can easily be mistaken for satire.
The advisory is significant not only because of its concessions to woke ideology, but also as a reaction to America’s departure from its former nuclear family standard for households. The Marxist dream of the dissolution of marriage and the nuclear family, which makes way for the state to “operate in loco parentis,” as David Solway has put it, is increasingly becoming a reality.
On Friday evening ( August 30) at around 7:40 pm, a woman injured five people with a knife on a bus on Freiengründer Straße in Siegen Eiserfeld. Three people were critically injured, one person was seriously injured and one person was slightly injured.
There were at least 40 other passengers on the bus at the time of the attack. The bus was on its way to the city festival in Siegen.
The police were able to arrest a 32-year-old woman as a suspect.
The police are on the scene. The crime scene has been cordoned off, the police are securing evidence and questioning witnesses.
There is currently no further danger.
Dortmund police have taken over the investigation and are leading the operation.
The United Kingdom drew oodles of praise in the press here for its smooth and cordial transfer of power, which was contrasted quite favorably against what has been in seen in the U.S..
That was then.
Now the new U.K. prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has demonstrated something rather different.
He’s yanking down the portrait of Lady Margaret Thatcher, the country’s greatest prime minister since Churchill, because he finds it ‘unsettling.’
It echoes President Obama’s move to take down the White House bust of Churchill and ship it back to Great Britain since he didn’t want to look at it.
A portrait of Margaret Thatcher has been moved from her former study in Downing Street, weeks after Sir Keir Starmer arrived in No 10, according to the new prime minister’s biographer.
Tom Baldwin said he believed the painting of Lady Thatcher, who served as Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990, was now hanging in another part of the building.
Downing Street officials said they would not comment on the building’s interior.
The painting of Margaret Thatcher has been moved to the kitchen which is a problem as my milk keeps disappearing…https://t.co/1evX502yrj
The photo seen in the BBC’s thumbnail pretty well tells the whole story.
Because far from being like Thatcher, Starmer is the exact opposite of the Iron Lady.
Thatcher brought freedom and prosperity to Britain after a long period of Labour-led decline.
Thatcher also projected strength and resolution abroad, knowing exactly what she stood for.
Thatcher was the finest of allies with the United States, teaming up with the great Ronald Reagan and Rome’s great John Paul II to topple the great slave empire of the Soviet Union in a final blow, not of military force, but by forcing it to collapse under its own weight.
Thatcher brought confidence and certainty to the U.K., putting pride in its step and greatness in its name.
And Starmer? He’s apparently exactly what she destroyed in Britain on her watch, and it took 24 years after she stepped down from power, and 11 years after her death for all the ruin of Labour to recrudesce, made possible by the continuous rule of British RINOs, or as Thatcher called them, “Tory wets.”
Which brings up one last thing: Thatcher was popular, and remains popular, having won re-election twice and ruled Britain for 11 years, adored by all except the leftist crazies. Sadly, Starmer, for all his royal titles, mild-mannered demeanor, washed hair, and clean clothes, appears to be one of them, having turned Britain into a nasty, vile tyranny, throwing people in jail for wrongthought, including even people silently praying at abortion clinics or expressing their discontent about migrant crime on social media. He’s no better than the Soviets except that he’d never admit it.
No wonder her portrait gives him the willies.
The interesting thing here is that Thatcher ruled a long time ago, yet even after all these years, Starmer the petty tyrant simply can’t take it. Thatcher still lives rent-free inside his head after all these years and the sight of her looking down at him with her icy crystal eyes — “the eyes of Caligula, the lips of Marily Monroe” as Francois Mitterand once put it — is simply too much for Starmer.
What it shows is he’s a petty, petty, pathetic, bitter little man who will never hold a candle to Lady Thatcher. His Labour predecessor, Gordon Brown, retained the old spirit of comity with both parties and understood her greatness. Although Brown was never very popular and didn’t last long as prime minister, he towers head and shoulders above Starmer and his petty act. Starmer will come and go like the flotsam and jetsam that have been swept in and out of 10 Downing, another weakling who will eventually be thrown out and rapidly be forgotten.
But the icy, iron gaze of Lady Thatcher will remain on him, silent, uncompromising, and eternal, the very essence of greatness, looking down on his guilty conscience.
