Trial by Fury

2,479 words

The trial of Axel Rudakubana began and ended on the same day at Liverpool Crown Court in England. Known as “the Southport killer” after he murdered three little girls in that English town in July last year, Rudakubana’s trial had an immediate twist in an already tangled tale, and one nobody saw coming. Given that the trial was slated to last 4-6 weeks, there was no need for the qualifying word “allegedly” to be used after the morning of day one, as the killer immediately pled guilty to all sixteen charges laid against him. For months, the British media had used the same photo of Rudakubana as an innocent, studious-looking little boy, but the nation now got to see his sullen black face.

We also learnt his first words in custody: “I’m glad they’re dead”. He added, “It makes me happy”. It has always struck me as rather sinister that the pursuit of happiness can have so many different routes. Axel Rudakubana was nine days short of his 18th birthday when he was arrested. This means, in British law, that he could not be given a full-life sentence. I watched the sentencing live, and Rudakubana was given life, with a recommendation that he serve at least 52 years.

As for what was found in the killer’s room, we got a clearer picture of this boy-man. In addition to the ricin and an “Al Qaeda training manual” we already knew about, we learned that this “former Welsh choirboy” (which is how the BBC portrayed him), also had a machete – fashionable nowadays for the young man about town – and some arrows, as you do. We also learned of a cache of “anti-white, anti-colonial books” in the young man’s lair. How quickly would every front page in Fleet Street (traditional home of the British print press) have run with the story had this been a young white man with The Turner Diaries? He seemed never happier than when watching documentaries about school shootings, and another pastime appears to have been genocide. Understandable, as his parents are from Rwanda, world leaders in that sector. His Al Qaeda training manual gave instructions as to which parts of the body to strike when stabbing someone to death. “Aim for the head and neck”, he read. Rudakubana inflicted over 120 stab-wounds on his victims, and tried to decapitate one of the little girls. He was clearly a diligent student.

This trial was a big one and you could tell from the moment the court case was set for January 20th to coincide with mass media coverage of President Trump’s inauguration. It’s up there with the trial of the serial-killer doctor, Harold Shipman, and that of Fred and Rose West, unspeakable serial murderers and sexual abusers of their own children. Further back, it is as big as the trial of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in England, for killing her lover, or Derek Bentley, hanged in 1953 for murdering a policeman amid huge controversy over disputed evidence. Bentley was posthumously pardoned in 1993, and his conviction, rather oddly, only quashed five years later, a little too late for the young man, who had what we would now call “learning disabilities”. Britain suspended the death penalty in 1953 but didn’t actually abolish it until 1998. The big difference, of course, between Rudakubana and the subjects of the other big trials noted is that they were all white. Violent crime in Britain used to be a home-grown affair before we started importing foreign goods and services.

Rudakubana’s passage to his fate and that of innocent others was made so easy it must have surprised even him. There were more red flags than a communist rally, but no one seemed inclined to pick up and act on them. He was referred to the Prevent anti-radicalization program three times, but no one told the police because they didn’t have to. The police themselves had to visit his home on several occasions. A teacher reported Rudakubana as changing from “a normal student” to being increasingly threatening. Just another racist teacher? A psychiatrist noted of the boy that “I am worried that he might kill someone”, and no doubt his report was filed somewhere. The boy was caught with a knife at school ten times, that’s one-zero times, before finally being excluded. Little scamp. What, I wonder, is the psychological harm done to parents now they know they are waving their children off to a school where no one in charge cares if the pupils are armed? Oh, I almost forgot. The killer called Childline three times. Childline has been going since 1986, long before mobile phones, and was actually an excellent, preventative idea, even limited to land lines. It meant kids could call with problems and talk to a trained adult adviser. I bet it prevented a lot of abuse. Anyway, what was troubling the Southport killer? Nothing complicated. He just wanted to know how to kill someone. He might have done just that a week earlier than he finally struck if his father hadn’t begged a taxi driver not to take his son to school with his machete.

No one said anything, at least not in public.

No one reported anything, or if they did then they were ignored.

No one did anything. No one did anything.

I would be very surprised if this does not lead to civil action suits and private prosecutions brought by the families of the victims against local authorities and social services, as well as the police. I bet they would be sued to Kingdom Come in the States for this level of gross negligence. Organs of the state are not immune to this, although the deep state would wage a dirty legal fight to protect their inbuilt incompetence.

The British public services have long been an over-funded, over-managed, mis-managed, profligate waste of the public purse, and this case has sent a flare up into the night to light up that sector. Now you can see where everyone is.

Would a company having to slug it out in the private sector last beyond lunchtime if this was the level of performance ability of its staff? And that’s not the average performance, that’s the total performance. No one in any position of responsibility who could have stopped a triple murder of under-10s did so. These aren’t a few bad apples. The whole barrel stinks.

Starmer, of course, praised the public sector, and his argument was, for once, worded interestingly. We needed to recognize the contribution, he said at a press briefing, of the thousands of people who “worked together towards a guilty verdict”. Now, not only was Starmer a lawyer, he was the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions), and head of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service), the Darth Vader of the British legal system. One would think he would recognize that, if you and your legal team are working “towards a guilty verdict”, and you are not in a communist country or somewhere in Africa, then you are doing something you really ought not to be doing.

Perhaps Starmer’s thoughts lay elsewhere, such as the necessity of having the press briefing-room in Downing Street redecorated because its current blue reminded him of the hated Conservative Party (political colors are reversed in the UK compared with the US). The cost of the paint job was £80,000, so presumably the decorator was a lineal descendant of Michelangelo.

Now we turn to one of the most important chapters in the technocratic politician’s playbook; deflection. At the head of the chapter, we find a genetically modified version of the first line of the famous Hippocratic Oath all doctors must swear; “First, do no harm – to my career”. Would Starmer push one of his Ministers under a tube train? Would he summon once more the shades of the British far right (for they are long since departed)? Or would it be the fault of Elon Musk and Nigel Farage for social media posts that altered the very fabric of reality and drove a young choirboy to kill? None of the above. Starmer knew exactly who was to blame for the Southport massacre. The culprit was staring us in the face all along. It was Jeff Bezos.

For those of you not familiar with the great detective novels, allow me to explain Sir Keir Starmer’s reasoning. Follow closely, for it is fiendishly clever:

Axel Rudakubana murdered three and injured 10 with a knife. The knife was bought from Amazon. Jeff Bezos own Amazon. Therefore, Jeff Bezos is to blame.

QED, and large measures of tech censorship all round. This example of what Plato called “bastard reasoning” is pretty desperate stuff, even by the standards of this wretched administration.

Should any doubts remain about this blatant use of a triple child murder to control the citizens’ access to information, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper followed up on Starmer’s Amazon gambit the following day. In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, Cooper demands that content deemed by the government to be undesirable:

[be] removed from your platforms to ensure that it is not used to inspire other attacks. This trial has laid bare the potential consequences of failing to act on such content.

This includes Google, and so the British government took all of two days, post-sentencing, to act to restrict access by the British people to two of the world’s largest information platforms.

Back to the playbook, in which distraction is every bit as important as deflection. The “debate” since the trial has been constructed around “calls” for sentencing laws to be changed. This is meta-law, law about the law, and it offers a wily lawyer such as Starmer a chance to confound us with jargon and obfuscation. It is also an absurd idea, reactionary in the extreme, and serves only to distract from the from the obvious issue, the abject inability of British public servants to do the jobs for which they are employed at often handsome salaries.

There are three possible reasons for the failings of social services in the case of Axel Rudakubana, and thus for the killings in Southport:

1. Social services are systemically incompetent.
2. Social services colluded with the deep state to facilitate the killing.
3. Social services are frightened of charges of “racism” or “Islamophobia” should they raise the alarm over a Muslim.

Three choices, and not one of them particularly appetizing. If it’s the first, then welcome to the future of the British public sector, because educational standards are unlikely to improve any time soon. The second takes us into the realm of the political thriller, but that doesn’t rule it out. The third actually seems the most likely. Twenty years ago, a charge of racism in the office would have meant a couple of cold shoulders. Now, you might well be clearing your desk.

The judge handed down 52 years in jail to Rudakubana. He was 17 when he committed the crimes, and so could not be given a “full-life sentence”, which does what it says on the tin. His Honor added that it was “highly unlikely he will never be released”. The more right-of-center commentariat began to crow that he would die in jail, and not of natural causes, but I wouldn’t bet a pound to a pinch of snuff on that horse. Muslims seem to run modern British jails, having taken over the stewardship from blacks, some of which join the ranks of the new Daddy. Rudakubana is perhaps less likely to have to deal with skinhead assailants in jail, and more likely to have his own Praetorian Guard once inside.

This was a bigger trial than those noted because it was the first of its kind in the fully developed mass-information age, where opinion becomes part of the narrative in minutes, and the narrative is the beast government must tame and bring under its wing. Starmer’s use of three dead girls as a piece in a game intended to increase online surveillance powers made me wonder, once again, if he is not some new breed of politician, eugenically created with the conscience bred out. The dead girls have become acceptable collateral in an info-warzone.

If the current British government were deliberately attempting to provoke severe civil unrest, they would not be doing a single thing differently. Talk of revolution is hypothesis, but some things can be true even in a hypothetical situation. And one of those is that, in the event of a revolution in the UK, the result would depend on what kind of mood the army was in that day. That’s why the deep state has been tinkering with the armed forces, feminizing it, putting transgender bromide in the tea to try to pacify those rough, white, male, and worryingly conservative soldiers. Pacifying your army seems odd, but England is an odd country at present.

This has shone all sorts of unwelcome flashlights into the dank cellar of Britain’s deep state. And what a time for a raid! Labour have yet to wake up to the fact that they are swimming upstream, struggling internationally against a strong current of right-wing political power. Barring hostile coalitions, that is, which are being used across Europe to stall the right. Socialists just don’t get that things are changing from Anchorage to Budapest.

Added to being fearfully out of step politically, there is an atmosphere of blazing torches and pitchforks in the UK just at the moment, but whether or not the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 will get a reboot remains to be seen. And the non-MSM press in the UK fail to grasp another move in this 4-D chess-match. When the focus groups and the special advisers and the spin-doctors look at Starmer’s collapsing, Bidenesque poll figures, they don’t think, “Oh no! We are unpopular with the people!” They think, like Mr. Burns in The Simpsons, “Excellent! We must be popular with our globalist masters because we are unpopular with the people.”

Is Rudakubana a patsy? Difficult to run with that one unless it’s some deep-state move to oust Starmer. It has very much been his problem, and you can sense Labour sharks beginning to think about circling. But why would those people who really matter – and I don’t mean the British electorate – be concerned? Starmer has two school reports, one for the globalists, one for the people. Only one is of any concern to the government.

In the meantime, the country waits uneasily for the next Axel Rudakubana, for this is far from being over. Stabbings and car attacks are occurring on a daily basis now in Britain, and (Ann) Coulter’s Law applies there just as much as it does in the States: the longer the police don’t release a suspect’s name, the less likely that suspect is to be white. For Britain and its indigenous people, this year could see a return to the Anglo-Saxon judicial principle of trial by ordeal.