Starmer is many things to many people.
To some, he is a liar, to others a traitor, ever ready to serve the interest of the International Collective against that of our country.
He might be all that and more, or less, but more importantly, he might be, as comedian and economist Dominic Frisby sings, his “toolmaker” father’s biggest achievement, namely “the biggest tool around”.
For those ill-willed towards our country and her long history, now is their time.
Ask and they shall receive.
Many are doing so already, ever ready to enter into hyena-like alliances the better to pick apart Britannia’s putrefying body, preferably in the back rooms of international institutions.
They know to rely on our unaccountable and equally hostile quangocrats to execute their shameless plundering.
The parcelling out of our goods is evident in the field of foreign affairs and domestically.
The Chagos, EU and Green New deals are all cases in point.
All can be given to others in exchange for the nebulous term “influence” and that meaningless “seat at the table” turn of phrase.
These two expressions merely mean that we work to pay for their costly international shindigs and the circumventing of our sovereignty.
On Chagos, the government of the United Kingdom and that of Mauritius signed the paperwork “mindful of the need to complete the process of decolonisation of Mauritius”.
Our overseas territories; our fishing water; paying to be regulated, that is to say controlled, by foreign bureaucratic institutions; housing illegals in spacious hotels and subsidising their rent, while raising the price of life for locals; all of it is payment for our historical and generational guilt.
To lift our pockets of their hard-earned content, they drill shame into our souls, defang our patriotism, and relentlessly overrun all principles.
I've done some digging. Keir Starmer's Chagos sell-out can be traced back to his Marxist roots - Alex StoryGetty Images
With Starmer, Roger Helmer, and Philip Sands, the self-serving and righteous Chagos deal architect, and other such rascals on the make, all that belonged to us can be given to others.
The evidence is also there on our streets.
Burglaries and shoplifting have become theoretical crimes. In practice, they are not.
The detection rate for the former is quasi-non-existent; the cost of the latter is overwhelming.
A recent report from Policy Exchange, a think tank, calculated that the tangible costs of crime to the United Kingdom are about £170bn or around 6.5% of GDP”.
The report continues: “Of these costs, about £38bn are inflicted on businesses, £31bn on the public sector, and about £63bn against individuals”.
One is more likely to win the lottery than to find a Columbo-like detective to solve such crimes.
On the other hand, officers willing to harass and arrest those who seek to tell the truth can be found with depressing ease.
The reason for our predicament is simple: ownership is theft as all good Communists know.
From that perspective, and it the one that governs, we who own are criminals.
We are witnessing the real-time implementation of redistribution domestically and “reparations” internationally.
Starmer is and always was an extremist.
He was pro-Soviet to the bitter end.
The collapse of the rotting Communist behemoth was a moment of the greatest sadness to him.
He was melancholy when the multitude rejoiced.
For those in doubt, he wrote and was part of the editorial collective for Socialist Alternatives, a quarterly magazine linked to the International Revolutionary Marxist movement from 1986 to the Soviet Union’s eventual collapse.
Further, he penned articles in Socialist Lawyers, a magazine attached to the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, a hard (hard) left organisation.
In 1995, he wrote that for a socialist like him “society is not a necessary but regrettable diminution of the individual's unlimited natural right to do as he or she likes”.
Rules, laws, traditions and (Christian) morality, therefore, must be circumvented to emancipate men and women from the yoke of society.
This could be achieved by “entrenching” Human Rights and the international legal order to stymie national laws.
Finally, as an adult, he holidayed in Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1986, mainly to imbibe the Czechoslovak Worker’s paradise-deadening atmosphere.
He took time to restore a memorial to the victims of German Socialism, but did little to acknowledge to real crimes being committed under the country’s communist dictatorship he went to visit.
Then the country was ruled by Stalinist Gustáv Husák, who was persecuting signatories to Charter 77.
The latter was a group of dissidents demanding to be free.
It was made up of musicians, artists and writers, not least Václav Havel, repeatedly incarcerated, and who, subsequently, became the country’s president the moment the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989.
In short, Starmer went to a country to restore a memorial at a time when the regime was arresting its citizenry by the hundreds.
Communist prisons were full of people who were committing thought crimes.
Starmer was on the side of the repression then. He is on that side now.
To those who believe that Starmer has changed because he wears a suit, it is worth remembering that he has remained fully committed to Internationalism and that, in his own words, “I don't think there are big issues on which I've changed my mind”.
Internationalism means to serve the interest of foreign powers, be they bureaucratic, commercial or national, ahead of your own country.
That is what Starmer does. It is his deeply held religious conviction.
The proof is in the pudding.
