Perversions of the State - The Punch and Judy Show

A few thoughts around the puppet show that is our democracy

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Good morning, welcome back to Flatcap Nationalist. It is the morning of Monday, the 4th of May 2026. Bank holiday Monday. I hope you've all had a good weekend, spent some time with friends, family, rest, relaxation, whatever it is you need to do. If you are working, thank you for whatever it is that you do. This is the second episode in the Perversions of the State series. This one's called the Punch and Judy Show, so let's get into it. As you know, I've been thinking a bit about some of the elements of the state and society as it is at the moment that really piss me off. And uh all of these I I was struggling to think what to call it really. It's the sort of psyox and deceptions played on us by the state, by the establishment, by the media, um who are all infiltrated by tendrils of the state anyway. So my main culprit for this one being Prime Minister's questions. So for those who don't know, every Wednesday the MPs get together in Parliament, they have debates and hash it out and leer and jeer at each other, and it's all you know all makes for very good compelling theatre. Um but I believe that's exactly what it is, just a theatre production. Now, ostensibly, prominence's questions is an opportunity for us to get a look into parliament. But in reality, it's like getting a snippet from the circus. You know, so for one, one of the things that gets me is they'll all get around in the chambers. But they're all subject to, you know, they they're supposedly they get parliamentary privilege, they can say whatever they want to say, but they have all these ludicrous rules. For example, you're not allowed to call somebody a liar, even when they're blatantly lying. So you'll watch them and you'll watch them doing this kind of tap dance and and watch them pussyfoot around the topic because they're not allowed to say you're a liar. And that just really gets me every time to be honest, because it's painfully obvious when they're lying, and it's painfully obvious when somebody's trying to imply that the opposition is lying, but then just not allowed to come out and say you are a liar. You know, so it's quite often things get delayed, it really brings down the pace of the argument when instead of just saying, you know, a couple of words, you're a liar, you have to meander around it to imply it, but not sufficiently strongly so that you can be pulled you know pulled up on it uh as somehow breaking some kind of parliamentary protocol. So that's one of the things that annoys me about it, because half the time we the people, what we'd really like to see are the elites and the ministers get called out on their bullshit. We would like to see that, right? But yeah, roadblocks in the way of that. Now, pre-manences questions and the the House of Commons is presided over by the Speaker. You know, the Speaker at the moment is a bloke called Lindsay Hoyle. I think he's a Labour operative, and he he's supposedly neutral and presides over the House. You know, he's the guy in charge of Parliament, but uh quite often you'll see him. You know, the Prime Minister doesn't answer the questions, and the Speaker who has the power to compel him to do so never makes him do it. But what's the point, you might ask, a Prime Minister's questions, if the Prime Minister can get away with not answering questions? It's really, really frustrating. Sometimes you'll see them, they'll ask the same question four, five, six, seven different times. Different ministers will ask the same questions in a different way, coming from a different angle. And the Prime Minister every time can get away with just not answering that question. You know, so so how open and transparent is it? You know, the it's supposedly our our opportunity to see democracy at work, and it what we see instead is filibustering and you know, word games to avoid telling the truth, to avoid giving an honest response to a question. You know, so it again it begins to feel a little bit like a stage production at that point, right? Yeah, just a little sidetrack on this one as well. It's not directly tied into the the punch and duty thing, but um yeah, so we're we're we're told in this country that parliament is sovereign. Okay, it's not the monarchy, like uh some people believe. Um usually Americans, you know, the monarchy has no real political power. Uh parliament, as has been established over the previous few centuries, is supposedly sovereign. Okay? So Prime Minister's questions is an opportunity for us to examine the sovereignty that rules over us and see the mechanisms by which laws are created and implemented. So when you have the very same Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, giving advice to Parliament and and saying that he is afraid for ministers' safety if they vote the wrong way on Palestinian uh recognition, you begin to see again that our democracy has been subverted. Because while we, the gallery, you know, the paying public who buy the tickets for the punch and duly show, our only real weapons against the establishment are mockery and scorn and questions and laughter. That's all we can do, really. But there are other operatives in the game who will use intimidation and force and fear to get their way. Which is why, you know, the the sovereignty of parliament is also an illusion. Because if you are part of the protected class that is enabled and permitted by society to wield actual force to get your way, you know, while everybody else, all we can do is comment, yeah, and and make little podcasts and things like that. Yeah, I don't know, it begins to look again like an illusion, like a punch and judy show. Yeah, like a a circus for the masses. And it begins to look more and more like a circus as well. Now you you watch it, watch Prime Minister's Questions, and you will see one side or the other making a point, making a counter argument to the other side, and upon making it, you know, one side or the other will immediately begin jeering and leering and cheering and laughing. Now, this is all part of the show. This is all part of why people watch it, you know, and it it gives it the feeling of a gladiator in an arena, you know, playing for the cheers of the crowd. It's designed to give that kind of illusion. You know, you can see them down there on the bench sometimes, fancying themselves as little prize fighters or something like that, you know, going into the free. And and I can imagine for those involved, it's probably an adrenaline-inducing experience. Yeah, because you've got to get up, you've got to defend your position, or you've got to make an attack on the opposition's position. And it it probably feels like good sport to them. You know, that's certainly how they see it. And while they're on the field of battle, you know, while they're in the arena, yeah, they might savage each other, but we know damn well afterwards, they're all patting each other on the back and going for a drink. We know this goes on. So again, it's an illusion. It's an illusion. These people are all in the same circles, you know, and while they might have different views, they they're all pally with each other. But now think about it, you know, you somebody in Prime Minister's questions might make the same point that you're thinking. They might attack something from the same point of view as you. And the response from the opposition, the official opposition, or the government, is to leer and jeer and laugh. The government laughing in the face of the people. Now, Prime Minister's questions is an opportunity for the government to laugh directly in the face of the people. Right? If you happen to agree with whoever's making a certain point and the government's response is to leer and jeer, yeah, I don't know, I'm not a big fan of that. Not a big fan of the deified institution of democracy being utilised to laugh at the people exercising their voice. Not a fan of that at all. Not a fan. And there are some people, oh, I've noticed a lot of content creators, they'll they'll wait for Wednesdays to come around and they hang on Prime Minister's questions as a golden opportunity to mine, you know, content out of it. And there are people that that tune in religiously, you know, because they they believe it gives them a deeper insight into the inner workings of the country and and the direction of travel and all these things. And they will watch Prime Minister's Questions repeatedly. You know, they are the paying gallery, they are the the audience, you know, throwing peanuts at the circus. That's what they are. Yeah, it's it's all a part of the circus. It's it's part of the punch and duly show. And at the end of the day, you know, I I firmly believe that the the both parties or you know, both major parties for the last 30 years, they've been ruled primarily by the civil service. So the democracy that we venerate so much i is actually just an illusion anyway, because the direction of travel is established by the civil servants and the policies that they are willing to implement or not, you know, regardless of the will of the people and regardless of the instructions of the government, the civil service, which just happens to be stocked full of foreigners and leftists, they're the ones that are really in charge, you know, and and prominence's questions is just the the puppet show put on for us little people to believe that maybe we have a say, maybe we have some kind of input, and maybe we can we can see what's going on in parliament and we'll have our representatives that we voted for up there to challenge them. And when they do challenge them, they get leered at and jeered at, and they're leering and jeering at us as well. You know, I I don't think it's healthy personally. Now one thing I do think it's good for is you you can go back and you can see the difference you know, the difference in performance of politicians when they're in opposition compared to when they're in the government. So you you can go back, for example, and watch old Prime Minister's questions from when the Conservatives proposed taking away the pensioners' winter fuel allowance. And you can see Keir Starmer making an impassioned defence of the winter fuel allowance, or at least as far as can be considered passionate, for such an emotionally flat, no internal model of prick as Keir Starmer. You know, and he even, in a dramatic flourish, brings out a survey that he's commissioned that finds that if the Tories take away the winter fuel allowance, 4,000 people are gonna die, yeah, they're gonna freeze to death over the winter. Now, this is not some kind of deeply held principle of Keir Starmer's because what that was one of the first things he did when he came in was to take away that winter fuel allowance. Now, let's just assume that it's not just theatre, right? And he actually believed, you know, it was a deeply held principle of his that you cannot take away the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. Yeah. If that were the case, it'd be a nice touch. He comes in with his his survey results and he he delivers them to the house, and then they'll take a step back and think, wow, the Tories are a bunch of pricks, aren't they? Willing to condemn 4,000 people to death to save what, half a billion quid. Yeah, same amount that they'll routinely give away to foreign nations at the drop of a hat, no questions asked. But the fact that once he came into power, that was one of the first things he did, it shows you that it's just a way to score points with the little people. It's a way for him to advertise to pensioners, hey, vote for Labour. You know, and let's just say they did. Let's just say these pensioners thought, well fucking hell, I ain't voting for them Tories again, because they try to take away my winter fuel allowance, and I actually need that, because I don't know if people are aware, but it's basically if you weren't above 10 grand a year, you don't get the winter fuel allowance. Now, 10 grand a year 20 years ago, yeah, that'd be enough to pay you monthly bills. Yeah, you could pay that and uh and have a little bit left over to live on, and you won't have to pay tax on it, and you get your winter fuel allowance to help you out in the cold months. Well, now the threshold hasn't changed, and you might still have to pay tax on your pension, which we've already been taxed on, by the way. And you know, based on government policies, the cost of heating has absolutely skyrocketed, as has, you know, food and pretty much everything else. So the 10 grand allowance, you know, tax-free that the pensioners get doesn't even cover the basics anymore. So to take that away from them, yeah. I mean you they may well have changed their vote from Tory to Labour just based on that, only to be immediately backstabbed and betrayed and have their winter fuel allowance taken away from them. And I I find it especially egregious given the fact that, you know, the Tories again, assuming that it's not just a punch and duty show and it's actual you know what what we see play out in Prime Minister's questions is actual real life politics. So at that point, the Tories proposed taking it away, presumably without commissioning a study that found that, you know, thousands would die. Well is that not so much worse then for Labour under the very same guy that commissioned that study to come in and take it away? That to me, no, four thousand people's lives, you know, the blood of four thousand people start on your hands. But it's all political theatre anyway, it's all irrelevant. It's basically point scoring. Yeah, it's punching duty with a score sheet. That's what it is. It's an illusion. Like so many things with the state, you know, they try to foster this image of transparency, right, so that we we we know what's going on and we've got access to information to make informed decisions, which surely should be you know, the the the intention of any decent democracy is making sure that the people entrusted to, you know, vote and to make decisions have access to all the necessary information to make the right decisions. Okay, so in this vein, and Tony Blair made so many sweeping changes to the British government, you know, in the nineties and two thousands, one of the things that that he implemented was the freedom of information system, whereby you can send in a request to the government for whatever information it is that you require about, you know, crime statistics or housing numbers or whatever it might be. Okay, you you've got access to this information that isn't necessarily published by the government, but you can bet your ass it's stored by the government. Now, Tony Blair, he actually said that his biggest regret was the freedom of information system, yeah, of trying to be transparent. That was his biggest regret. You know, not uh opening the floodgates to huge numbers in immigration, not getting us involved in a war that really should never have happened, you know. We know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that, but we went anyway. Yeah. And hundreds of British soldiers died, and thousands, thousands of Iraqis died. Now that given that the nature of that war was not just, yeah, there was no justification for it, all of that blood is on Tony Blair's hands, yeah, and the subsequent terrorism that is left us open to. Every single victim of Islamic terrorism that's been perpetrated against us since the Iraq invasion, that's all on Tony Blair's hands. But despite that, his biggest regret was implementing the freedom of information system of being transparent, of allowing us, the little people, to get a glimpse inside the government and to see the inner workings and to see basically whatever information we want. Having access to immigration data, crime data, housing statistics, yeah, the the number of people on benefits, you know, broken down by ethnicity and uh and you know rapes of sexual assault by different communities. We have access to all this stuff, you know, or allegedly we do. So then you get somebody like uh Rupert Lowe, who's using the freedom of information system to access information freely. And a lot of it is data that the government would prefer is not out there, which is why they don't publish it themselves anyway. Okay, so Rupert Lowe himself has submitted thousands of freedom of information requests. And quite often the response that comes back is, oh, we don't hold this data. Um they could access that data, they could collate that data, but they they hide behind a paywall and they say no it would be it would be too expensive for us to procure this data for whatever reason that might be. Now, even when private citizens have offered to pay, however much it would cost to collate the data, quite often the response comes back as no, we're not going to do that. So the freedom of information system is also an illusion. They'll give you the information that they think can't do any harm to themselves, but it might not necessarily be the information that you've asked for. And if you ask for it and they say no, you don't really have any recourse. Yeah, so this is why Rupert Lowe's arrived at a point where he's no longer allowed to submit freedom of information requests because he was obtaining great data that was damning for the establishment, but very, very good for his people and could be utilised as ammunition by a strong right wing party. So he's no longer allowed to make them, which makes a mockery in the first place of the you know the the moniker freedom of information request, right? Once again, it's an illusion. One of the other ones, one of the other the the other type of illusion or psyop that they try to play on us is the building up and pulling down of public figures. Okay, so in this one, I want to look at Shibana Mahmoud, our home secretary. Now many people might find it strange that a Pakistani Muslim is the home secretary of a Christian European nation. I certainly do. And I know there were a lot of people concerned. When she was first installed as the home secretary, there were a lot of people concerned. Never mind the fact that, you know, out of our previous six or seven home secretaries, four or five of them have been foreigners. But there were a lot of people concerned about it. You know, what what put in a uh a Muslim as the Home Secretary in a time where tensions with the Islamic community and pretty much everybody else are heightening? And there are a lot of people that that were sort of speculating that she's been put in place to absolutely destroy us. Now, around the time of Shaban Mahmoud's appointment as home secretary, there was a lot of talk going around about this proposed bill that would make sure that the judiciary had to take into consideration people's ethnic origin, immigration status, sexuality, gender, the the works in determining sentencing. Okay, and it would effectively mean that straight white men would receive the harshest punishments while a you know a minority ethnic lesbian would receive much less time for doing the exact same crime, the exact same fashion. All the circumstances are the same, the only difference being the perpetrator. Now, she brought one of my mood came in and she immediately slapped that bill down. Not gonna happen, not on my watch. And everybody, oh, you know, maybe she's not gonna be that bad. And she's actually got quite a few, you know, pretty, pretty high functioning right wingers believing that she's some kind of base Muslim, some kind of base Labour member. And I I think this is all part of the side because that particular legislation never had a hope in hell of passing. No way breaks every single discrimination law that we have on the books. Now this doesn't usually stop them, but it would have been such a blatant abuse of the Equality Act that it never, ever would have passed. So what was the purpose of it? Well, you guessed it. It's to immediately give Shibana Mahmood props. It's immediately to give her a medal and say, look, this is a based, fair Muslim lady. You know all of your fears, yeah, don't worry about them. And and there's people also buying into her rhetoric as regards immigration. Now, she has spoken about closing down visa routes from certain countries, you know, countries that tend to abuse our asylum system or immigration system. So I I think she mentioned places like Eritrea, uh there's a number of other countries on there as well. Now one of the most abusive ones in terms of our immigration and asylum systems is Pakistan. Yeah, there's a lot of people, even though there's you know no war going on in Pakistan, but there might be at the moment between them and Afghanistan, I can't even keep up with it all at the moment. But even when there's no war going on, they still come over here as asylum seekers and refugees. That's a blatant abuse of our system. Well, they overstay visas and the works. But she's never said a word about them. She shut down the Eritreans, and she she's on about shutting down routes for for from different countries, but never Pakistan. Now I would argue out of all the ethnicities, all the different communities that have settled here, none of them have been as damaging to the fabric of this country as Pakistan. The Pakistani community has so many things to answer for, you know. Obviously the industrial scale rape and abuse of young British girls, primarily up there, but they're also incredibly terroristic. Yeah, they seem to have this kind of more radical form of Islam flowing through them. And they need to answer for these things. Yeah, even down to things like when the grooming gangs were exposed, the entire community knew about it. The whole of the Pakistani community knew about it, and they operate between different cities. So the Pakistani community in Manchester will liaise with the Pakistani community in Leicester or Birmingham or London or all over the place to traffic victims between them. So they're all complicit, they all know what's going on, and they never said a word. And then when it comes to it and a few of the perpetrators get taken taken to court, and the Pakistani women are there. Now I don't know about you, but I think if I'd been abusing girls, my missus wouldn't stand by me. If she came to the court, she'd be there hoping that I'll get sent down, and rightfully so. That's the kind of woman she is. She's very upright like that. Not the Pakistani women, no no no no. They turned up at the court to shout slag and slut at the victims. Disgusting. But Shabonama Mood, she's made no moves to curb the numbers coming in from Pakistan. In fact, she's made no moves to curb the numbers at all. Yeah, she wants to clamp down on certain countries, being able to come here, but the raw numbers no. Which means more visas will be given to more Pakistanis so that they can presumably come over here and do more damage. Yeah, and I'm just not buying it. I don't buy this based Shibanima mood, you know, and she's somehow further to the right than reform on immigration. I just do not believe this. Fundamentally do not believe this. It's a psyop being played on us to rehabilitate Islam and to make us seem you know, make us believe that this isn't a problem, this is perfectly okay. And I mean to tell you that it ain't okay. I mean this this is one of the facts, you know, one of one of the most damaging things I think about the Punch and Judy show is it effectively means that people's focus is entirely placed on the next episode, the next instalment of the Punch and Judy show. And it it it leads to incredibly short-term thinking. But that that means that things change at such a pace that a lot of people don't even really realise that the temperature has been turned up. They tune in week to week, uh and the changes are so gradual, incremental, they're you know, eventually they'll look around one day and go, what the hell happened to this place? But they don't see it happening in real time because they're short-term thinkers. I mean, just just for one, think about it, like say if Keir Starmer stepped down today, or David Lamy would be in charge of the Labour Party in the short term, which means, yeah, next week's Prime Minister's questions, you could have a Ugandan man debating Kemi Badinock, a Nigerian lady, right, in Parliament, which is housed in a Pakistani Muslim mayor's city, right? And they'll be discussing what it means to be English, to be British, and they'll be deciding the future of the British people, and the findings of those discussions will be implemented by a Pakistani Muslim. And this is supposed to be okay. This is the result of short-term thinking. This is the result of not contemplating what the future might look like if we go down a certain path. Okay, now where we're in that situation, Ugandan man, Nigerian lady, Pakistani Muslim mayor, Pakistani Muslim home secretary. Where in that? Where's the British representation in that? There isn't them. Punch and Judy show, plain and simple. It's circus for the plagues. And we're all invited along, buy our tickets, and occasionally we even get to choose which puppets play in the Punch and Judy show. But the result is the same. Anyway, it's a little bit of a shorter episode today. Thanks for listening, listening to me round. I'll have another one up for you again, hopefully next week, possibly the week after. But it's gonna be another element of perversions of the state. So thanks for listening, guys. Uh really do hope you've had a good weekend. I hope you have a great week coming up. I hope you tune back in for the next one. And please, guys, if there's somebody you think might enjoy this or might benefit from hearing I don't know, some working class Nobid vocalising his thoughts, share it with them, and uh until the next one, guys, goodbye.