Connolly has lost her appeal, but it is our government and judges who are the real criminals here.
Lucy Connelly has just lost her appeal against the 31 month sentence imposed on her in the immediate aftermath of the ‘Southport Riots’, which might be more accurately described as the Southport Purge.
Just as the small amount of actual violence on J6 was both provoked and orchestrated by the very people who would then claim it was an insurrection, all as a cover to dish through the illegal verification of a stolen election, the Southport Riots were not really about the ‘riots’ at all.
They were about imposing the terms of a new tyrannical regime that had taken over Britain.
When yet another Islamic influenced lunatic decided to murder three little girls and stab many others, provoking a spontaneous series of protests from a population that has seen crime, violence and terrorism all increase in line with massive levels of immigration, Keir Starmer’s newly elected government saw an opportunity.
The Southport killer was a 2nd generation immigrant. While himself born in Cardiff, his father and family were Rwandan immigrants. Axel Rudakubana was only born in Britain because his father was granted asylum here. He was detained at the scene of the murders and the police quickly knew his identity. Both the police and the media delayed releasing that information. It emerged later that the police searched his home and found an ISIS terrorist training manual, together with materials to make a ricin poison gas bomb.
Since virtually every single modern terrorist assault (other than earlier IRA linked ones) in Britain has been conducted by Muslims who are first or second generation immigrants and since neither the police nor the media were being honest about what was very quickly known to them regarding the murderer, online public soeculation swiftly focused on whether the killer was a Muslim, an immigrant or an asylum seeker.
But in modern Britain the authorities are far more worried by that kind of speculation than they are by the actual murders and terrorism being spoken about.
The opportunity they seized was to use the very small incidents of frustrated violence to reassert control of the national conversation on these issues. The authorities were very worried about Muslim and immigrant communities being criticised. As with the entire ‘grooming gsng’ issue, their focus was on either not dealing with Islamic crimes, or shifting the focus onto protests regarding Islamic crimes.
The reason for this is that the imported Muslim communities are a lot more organised and a lot more dangerous than the native British are. Britain’s Muslims work collectively, can organise large groups of men prepared to commit crimes and use violence at short notice, and are much more prepared to violently assert themselves against the State than most white British people are. The organisation of young Muslim men via mosques and their own set of values renders them useful to estsblished political parties in alliance with them (gaining a large number of activists and voters who will all follow the direction of bribed community leaders) and very dangerous to those same parties if they turn against them.
Pandering to these communities guarantees a block vote and in many areas Labour MPs in particular are totally dependent now on the organised Muslim vote. When it comes out for them they win, and when it doesn’t, they lose.
At the same time these communities don’t care about British law or the country they have joined. They don’t feel bound by Brirish values, and they are perfectly happy to treat their areas as conquered territories within which they impose their ideas of right and wrong. The authorities who have aligned with them out of self interest also align with them out of fear, because imported savages are actually a lot more likely to riot than native born Brits are.
When they look at these communities the Labour Party see votes gained by being soft on them, and potentially massive riots and disturbances by being tough on them. Even though the white population is still much larger overall, it’s far less organised and far less threatening. Nobody controls block white votes that you can gain by ignoring white criminality, and nobody can quickly gather up impromptu armies of rioters or murderers who are gathered together on the basis of racial self preservation (let alone racial or religious supremacism).
All the cowardly reasons for pandering to non whites, basically, don’t exist with whites. All the corrupt benefits of pandering to non whites don’t exist with whites either, who are far more socially atomised and far less easy to organise along religious or identity lines in any racially conscious way.
In other words the very fact that whites are less racially aware, less possessed of an in group instinct, and more prepared to obey the law and conform to legal limits, renders them an easier target for oppressive policing than any more violent or dangerous demographic is. The authorities can oppress white people without facing riots.
But if white people were as racially conscious as other groups, or if they had some firmly self-interested cultural or religious loyalty serving the same purpose, then their numbers would make them a much bigger problem for the authorities, particularly authorities that had for many years been acting against white group interests and aligning with imported races and religions as these commit crimes and behave in antisocial ways.
In other words, the Labour Party know that they can oppress and persecute white people and get away with it. Doing so cements their alliance particularly with Muslim groups and prevents the Muslims from going off on an orgy of obvious destruction. The national government have had the same attitude essentially as those police officers who during the Southport disturbances cracked heads and rounded up people if those facing the authorities were white, but at the same time appealed for peace and promised not to arrest anyone if those facing them were brown skinned Muslims.
Whilst talking about nobody being above the law and presenting themselves as strong enforcers of law and order, the government, courts and the police all function by the very opposite of justice, namely a religiously and racially determined alignment with one demographic against another. They are doubly harsh on white protestors because they do not fear a white backlash, and they target the least dangerous for the harshest responses.
This is not to say that they are completely without fear regarding the white population of Britain. They know this remains the actual majority, and they know after decades of betrayal and mistreatment the trouble they would be in if white native born Brirish people organised themselves along racial or religious grounds as aggressively as imported Third World communities do.
So the task of the government, courts and police is no longer to objectively and fairly enforce an equal law on all citizens. It’s not to stop riots by responding the same way to all riots. The task they have assigned themselves is to very harshly target the white majority, to stamp down on any display of self awareness or self protection or orgsnisation particularly from the white working class, so that these people can continue to be relied on to pay their taxes and obey the laws while being betrayed and replaced. And the punishment of white people must act as a kind of excessive display of power, both to discourage whites from self-organisation and to reassure Muslims of continued official submission to their desires.
Of course there are white Muslims too, but these are thus far a tiny and irrelevant fraction of a fraction. These people are the utterly demoralised, those who are desperate for a place of belonging, and will take that with an alien culture when they see how much that group is protected, deferred to and submitted to by the British society as it exists under Globalist rule.
All this is the context for the draconian and tyrannical responses to people like Lucy Connelly. The Labour government could not let an opportunity like Southport pass. They quite deliberately set out to send a message. Any white protest especially if it referenced immigration, asylum seekers or Muslims would be crushed. Any talk that ‘threatened community relations’ (effectively, any accurate and truthfully negative comment on mass immigration) would be responded to with maximum and excessive force. There was an almost gleeful element of this, given how many of the government, the police and the judges are now globalist progressive ideologues trained to detest their own white populace. Those schooled in self hatred, critical race theory and white guilt were automatically inclined to perceive exasperated white response to child murder as a far more urgent problem than the murders themselves.
For a certain class of indoctrinated and affluent British person, themselves removed from the kind of neighbourhoods likely to suffer first and most from luxury policies of national destruction, all whites who object to child murder, mass immigration, Islamic terrorism and the total transformation of their nation into a significantly less safe and significantly more divided country are racists, xenophobes and slope browed uneducated morons, deserving of the most severe punishments for crimes of speech and thought. Conversely any person who comes from a more exotic or alien background is imbued with almost sacred status, no matter how morally horrific or traditionally criminal their acts may be.
And these are the people who head the Labour Party. Southport for them was not an avoidable and loathsome set of child murders followed by understandable protest and objection. It was an orchestrated Far Right threat to innocent and valued Muslims, from worthless and objectionable whites. Keir Starmer of course both spread and held this intensely, hypocritically racist attitude, and it is that together with all I have expressed above that explains how Southport was treated as an opportunity to hit the white populace hard and make it clear to them that they are not allowed to object to mass immigration and terrorism.
Lucy Connelly had the misfortune of posting a social media message of frustration at the precise point where the government was looking for “Far Right” people to make an example of. This is what she posted:
The post above was removed within four hours, and initially had far, far fewer views than is indicated above. It is quite clearly an emotional post expressing deep horror at the Southport child murders and an equally deep frustration with the political system and asylum and open border policies that led to those murders.
But the idea that it was an instruction to burn down asylum centres and therefore warranted the incredibly harsh punishment Connelly received is fatuous nonsense driven by a pre-existing desire to silence all criticism in these areas and to chill debate so that no criticism of asylum, immigration and specifically Islamic groups is possible. The punishment was not about, really, truly believing that Lucy Connelly would commit arson or was encouraging anyone else to do so. The language is polemical and metaphorical, which is made quite clear by including all the government and politicians in this hypothetical fire and by saying “for all I care”.
What’s being expressed is that Connelly wouldn’t care if such a thing happened, because these people are a danger to her and to innocents like the murdered children. That is a very different point to instructing people to do it. Even those who consider the comment excessive should be able to recognise that it’s not literal, but chose not to because they wanted to punish all such hyperbole and all such frustration.
You are no longer allowed a policy that protects ordinary people of all races or the white majority in any way at all, but worse than that, your most frustrated expressions of despair will be taken literally as if you are the terrorist, when you complain about terrorism and complain about the political choices that have made that kind of murder much more likely.
Anyone sane could see that Connelly was an ordinary woman, a mother horrified by child murders, someone who had no history of violence or engagement with the law or with crime, someone with zero links to extremist groups or terrorism, someone talking in a metaphorical way, and yet everything she said was taken as a literal instruction to arson. But like nearly all the people arrested and charged and thrown in jail in record time regarding the Southport Riots, her previous unblemished record and her lack of actual engagement with violence in any form did not matter.
What mattered was that she was white, and she was saying things that offended the government. Like Peter Lynch, the 61 year old grandfather with no criminal record to his name either who was effectively murdered by the British State by unjust imprisonment pushing him to suicide, she used harsh, fierce language about demographics that are not to be questioned and policies that are not to be opposed. In both cases, we may ask whether the crime was being white and opposed to the government, or being white and opposed to mass immigration, or being white and blunt about Islam and asylum seekers. In each case though calling someone corrupt, or positing that you would not care if something bad happened to them, is not instructing people to kill them, and is not in any free democracy a criminal matter.
One of the things the response was supposed to establish for everyone, though, is that if you are white there are things you cannot and must not say about the government and its most destructive policies or its most favoured groups.
That’s why a woman who poses no real threat to anyone was punished so harshly, and that’s why her appeal failed too. They want the lesson to continue, for her and for the rest of us.
Daniel Jupp is a populist writer from Essex, England. His latest book is “Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates is the Most Dangerous Man in the World.” Daniel’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Jupplandia.