Post

More from @technopopulist

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Sep 16

I’ve put together a long analysis of the Charlie Kirk assassination. A lot of what I cover has already been said in different places, but I try to bring it all into one big picture of why this moment matters. To me, Kirk’s murder is an inflection point for the U.S.
🧵

1. The Friend–Enemy line hardens

Let’s begin with the obvious. Why has Kirk’s death provoked such a visceral response on the Right, even here in the UK?

Part of the answer lies in his profile. Kirk wasn’t some fringe activist; he had been a recognisable debater and campus pugilist for years, with deep ties to Trump and the wider MAGA movement. That gave his murder immediate political salience. Add to that the brutal fact that his assassination was broadcast in real-time and went viral within minutes, and you begin to see why the impact cut so deep.

Kirk’s personality also mattered. For all his sharp elbows, he was disarmingly warm in person - the kind of interlocutor who could hold a respectful exchange with opponents. Among those who followed politics closely, that earned him a great deal of respect.

But the real significance lies beyond Kirk himself. His assassination - and, crucially, the reaction to it - has become a synecdoche (a ‘part’ standing in for a ‘whole’). In this case, it has come to symbolise the decades-long radicalisation and moral collapse of the modern Left.

The evidence is everywhere. Kirk’s murder was openly celebrated on social media; there were T-shirts and even a 3-D printed model mocking his death. In the press, including in Britain, commentators queued up to smear him posthumously as “extreme” or “hateful,” often leaning on false or wildly distorted claims to justify it.

Even those who stopped short of outright celebration often slipped into rationalisation: “Of course political violence is wrong…but Kirk was reckless with his words. He was hateful! Live by the sword, die by the sword.” Etc, etc.

Others went further still, gaslighting the public with absurd counter-narratives - insisting, against all available evidence, that his assassin was really radicalised by the right. Prominent pundits, lawyers, and influencers all lent their voices to this grotesque inversion of reality.

The result has been a flood of lies, smears, and schadenfreude that has seeped into the wider public consciousness. This is why Kirk’s death matters as more than a single, tragic event. It has become a brutal emblem of just how far the Left has fallen - how thoroughly it has surrendered to sectarian hatred.

Beneath the surface, I sense something else too: a deep sense of regret among conservatives. Regret at their own naivety - at failing to grasp the sheer depravity of their opponents, and for their complacency in not getting organised sooner. That, I suspect, is about to change. The Right is already compiling its own blacklist of assassin-apologists and has been surprisingly effective at getting many of these people fired. I also expect a Trump administration to unleash a full-blown storm on the NGO-activist machine that operates covertly inside the U.S. to undermine its political culture.

In short, Kirk’s assassination has delivered an ontological shock. Conservatives always knew the left despised them. What they had not fully appreciated was the depth of that hatred - vindictive, sadistic, and, most chillingly, embedded not just in scruffy street activists but in white-collared professionals and well-tailored pundits. That was the true revelation. And that revelation will not remain one-sided. The shock is already beginning to rebound, and the Left, which assumed it could gloat without consequence, may soon find the chickens coming home to roost.

2. The penny has finally dropped on the Right about the Left’s hostility to democratic governance.

The second reason Kirk’s death matters so much is that it has stripped away the illusions. It has shown right-wingers, in no uncertain terms, that the left does not share their understanding of ‘democracy’. This isn’t the narcissism of small differences. It is a huge, yawning chasm. And it cannot be bridged by polite debate. It can only be bridged by the determined use of executive power - something even Trump strategist Stephen Miller now openly admits.

For the Left, democracy is legitimate only when it delivers progressive outcomes. The ‘demos’ part of democracy ends on election day. Once the votes are counted, they believe judges, NGOs, and career bureaucrats should be free to throttle or sabotage any government that refuses to fall in line with the progressive agenda. And if the institutions won’t do it, the activists *will*.

The results have been grim. Harassment, intimidation, censorship, de-banking, doxing, employer pressure, outright violence - all regarded as legitimate tools. Think of the Black Lives Matter riots, the “bash the fash” street thuggery, or the mobbing of conservatives on campus. Kirk’s murder was simply the logical endpoint of that mindset.

The right, by contrast, sees democracy as the rule of an elected government operating within classical liberal norms: free speech, due process, non-violence. But within that framework, a strong executive should be free to deliver on the manifesto it was elected on - without being tripped up by activist judges or the bureaucratic state. So when leftists cry that “Trump is a threat to democratic norms,” what they really mean is: “Trump is trying to sidestep the tripwires we planted to protect our agenda.” If Trump and his allies keep clearing those tripwires, the Left will fall back on disruptive tactics - what sociologist Charles Tilly calls “contentious politics.” Some of those tactics fit within democracy. Many do not.

And that’s why the reaction to Kirk’s murder has been so clarifying. Watching people in respectable jobs gloat over the death of a young father simply for espousing Christian conservatism has laid bare the true depth of the divide. One point I often make to my American acquaintances is that if it weren’t for the First Amendment, the Democrats would already have imposed the most draconian speech codes in the Western world. My American friends, unsurprisingly, never enjoy hearing that.

Read 4 tweets

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Jan 17

In politics, timing is everything. And Sir Keir Starmer’s timing couldn’t be worse. Britain – and the world – is heading for an economic crash the likes of which we haven’t seen in decades. When the dust settles, Starmer’s position will be untenable. 🧵

Why do I believe this? What makes me so sure?

It all comes back to an economic forecast made years ago by @DaveHcontrarian, a contrarian macro strategist with over fifty years of Wall Street experience. Hunter’s track record is nothing short of impressive, with countless accurate predictions and an unparalleled understanding of markets. If his prediction comes to pass – and I believe it will – it will send shockwaves through the United Kingdom and prove disastrous for Starmer’s premiership.

So, what does Hunter predict? In short: we’re at the end of a 42-year secular bull market. A market that has defied gravity for decades but is now hurtling toward its final act. This won’t be just a correction – it will be an implosion. Hunter foresees a global economic crisis that will hammer the financial sector and trigger a deflationary bust. But before that crash, he predicts a spectacular melt-up in the stock market. Picture this: the S&P 500 soaring to 7,500 only to nosedive to 1,500 in a matter of months. That’s an 80% collapse from peak to trough.

When the full gravity of this forecast sinks in, it will be clear that Starmer’s premiership won’t survive. His disastrous start, paired with the ruinous policies of his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will make it impossible for him to weather the storm. I believe he will be forced to resign when the worst of the crisis is over. And if he doesn’t resign, a challenger will almost certainly emerge in the shadows, as John Redwood did to John Major in the 1990s. In short, I don’t believe Sir Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the 2029 general election.

DEBT AND DERIVATIVES
Hunter’s forecast, which I’m convinced will play out and catch everyone off guard, sounds so outlandish that it’s hard to describe without risking coming across as a crank. But I’ll lay it out as clearly and dispassionately as I can, and let you be the judge of whether it holds any water. Here it is:

Hunter predicts that 2025 will be a year for the history books. Investors could see returns in a single year that rival what would typically take three to four years to achieve. Think back to the frenzied run-up of the NASDAQ in 1999-2000: a parabolic rally of epic proportions.

But here’s the catch: what goes up must come down, and in this case, the descent will be brutal. The climb will be spectacular, but the drop on the other side of this mountain will be just as steep, and it will happen fast. Volatility is the hallmark of the final stages of a secular bull market, and this time is no exception.

Everything now, in Hunter’s view, points to an inevitable financial reckoning in 2025-26. Decades of reckless spending and skyrocketing debt have pushed the global economy to the edge of a cliff. This isn’t just a U.S. problem – it’s a global disaster in the making.

Consider this: global debt stands at a staggering $315 trillion (£250 trillion), with trillions (quadrillions?) in the notional value of derivatives – financial contracts whose value is derived from the performance of an underlying asset. As Hunter puts it, derivatives act as leverage on markets, while debt leverages entire economies. Together, they deliver a one-two punch, amplifying both the scale and speed of any economic collapse. This kind of debt doesn’t just create bigger crashes – it accelerates them. What might look like a roaring market one day could turn into financial freefall seemingly overnight.

What, then, will trigger the crisis? As I understand Hunter’s forecast, the economic meltdown will stem from a deadly cocktail of excessive leverage – particularly in the sprawling, opaque derivatives market – combined with historical blunders by the Federal Reserve and mounting vulnerabilities in the global economy, particularly in China.

Hunter points out that the derivatives market could unwind quickly, leading to major market disruptions. This unwinding will be spurred by a sudden shift in investor sentiment from greed to fear, causing a rapid sell-off of assets. On top of that, the Federal Reserve’s heavy-handed response to inflation – aggressively tightening monetary policy between 2022-23 – will amplify the fallout, turning what might have been a sharp correction into a full-blown catastrophe.

Read 6 tweets

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Jan 12

Soul-crushing barely scratches the surface. This video exposes the moral bankruptcy of the British left. James Delingpole is silenced for daring to speak undeniable truths about grooming gangs and their ethnic profile.

Source: @RusGarbageHuman

I feel physically sick and mentally drained after watching this. A basic fact - that Kashmiri Muslims are overwhelmingly responsible for grooming gangs abuse - is outright denied by Nelufar Hedayat, an Afghan-British host and director.

Younger members of the audience, likely thinking of themselves as informed and edgy in their political views, can't fathom that everything Delingpole is saying is correct. Instead, they howl like banshees or spoiled children when they don't get their way. Totally unserious.

Read 6 tweets

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Dec 31, 2024

The Rotherham rape scandal ranks among the top 10 most significant events in British history since 2000. It stands alongside Brexit, the Iraq invasion, foot-and-mouth disease, 7/7, the expenses scandal, and the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Yet, unlike these headline-dominating events, Rotherham was met with an astonishing lack of media coverage.

In fact, the Rotherham scandal is so pivotal - such a defining moment in modern UK history - that you could even place it in the top five. Why? For several deeply troubling reasons.

First, the sheer barbarity and sadism of the crimes. This wasn’t some dark fiction conjured from a warped imagination; it was Salò-level depravity, happening in real life, on an industrial scale, for decades. The crimes were grotesque enough, but their persistence over such a long period makes them uniquely horrifying.

Now, I’m an extremely calm and gentle man - something that might surprise you, given how adversarial I come across online. But when I read about the Rotherham rape scandal, I can’t help but lose my temper. It makes my blood boil in a way few things can. Even writing about it now, I’m absolutely seething. The only other times I feel this level of rage are when I read about the mass slaughters and rapes in places like Sudan or the DRC.

(Of course, when I say 'Rotherham,' I’m not just referring to that one town. It’s a synecdoche - a stand-in for the many other places across the UK where similar large-scale atrocities took place. Rotherham stands out in many people’s minds because it became synonymous with the worst of these crimes.)

Read 7 tweets

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Dec 21, 2024

I’ve put together an article for @TheCriticMag breaking down the 'Boriswave' - the ongoing surge in immigration to the UK since 2021. There’s a lot more I could have covered, but here are the basics behind the biggest betrayal in modern British politics. thecritic.co.uk/explaining-the…

This article builds on an earlier thread I posted here on X. I've expanded on it a bit, but the core thesis remains the same.

I don’t believe the Boriswave was *completely* the result of a carefully planned strategy. There were many moments of 'muddling through' - ie, decisions made on the fly, with little thought, especially around care workers and humanitarian visas.

I also believe the Tories were genuinely caught off guard by the number of dependents accompanying foreign students, though this could have been nipped in the bud much sooner (but wasn’t). And there were absolutely no excuses for allowing dependents to join care workers.

At the end of the day, Boris had NO intention of bringing net migration down to the 'tens of thousands.' He didn’t care one bit, and deep down (though he’d never admit it in public) he knew the numbers would soar past pre-Brexit levels.

You’ve got to remember: by the time he became Prime Minister, Boris was brimming with confidence - he’d been mayor of London, built a high-profile media career, and led the Brexit campaign to victory against all odds. Boris thought he was untouchable - believing he could bluff and bluster his way through immigration, without facing any fallout.

Of course, I still think Boris felt bitter over the radicalisation of the Remain side and how he was demonised in some of the more pro-EU papers. But this, in turn, probably made him more willing to make amends with the pro-immigration lobby.

A speech I didn’t mention in the article, but found really interesting, was one Patel gave to the pro-migration think tanks Bright Blue and British Future. What she admits in public is pretty jaw-dropping, especially considering her hardliner image. Here’s what she said:

Read 4 tweets

Mike Jones

@technopopulist

Dec 7, 2024

This thread unravels one of the enduring mysteries of UK migration policy: why politicians consistently break their promises on immigration – despite knowing it’s politically toxic and perilous to their survival.

Buckle up 🧵

THE GREAT DECEPTION
“Control”. It’s the word of the moment – a touchstone for almost every political debate in Britain today. We often hear about how we've “lost control” of cities like London, how control has shifted to lefty lawyers and shady bureaucrats, or how we've ceded control to international courts and NGOs.

This is why the Brexit campaign’s slogan, “Take back control,” hit home so hard. It wasn’t just catchy – it was cathartic. It appealed directly to people who felt disempowered, out of the loop, and ignored by those in charge. As Paul Goldsmith noted in How to Lose a Referendum, Vote Leave’s slogans weren’t conjured by spin doctors – they echoed what people themselves were saying.

And it worked. Boris Johnson declared, “[the] only way to take back control of immigration is to Vote Leave”, while Priti Patel vowed to end the “chaos” with a slick new system that would slash numbers and cherry-pick only “the best and the brightest”. It was a bold pitch – simple, direct, and perfectly tailored to sell the dream of a Britain back in control of its destiny.

Fast forward to today, and those promises feel like ancient history. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show net migration hitting 728,000 for 2024 – more than triple what it was pre-Brexit. And if that’s not bad enough, 2023’s intake soared to a record-breaking 906,000. The immigration crisis is deeper, more entrenched, and more damaging than anyone anticipated.

This isn’t just a logistical headache for policymakers scrambling to build housing or keep public services afloat. It goes far beyond that. The stakes are existential. At its core, this crisis threatens the very fabric of Britain as a cohesive, prosperous, high-trust society. That’s what’s on the line here – and it’s hard to overstate just how high the stakes are.

Indeed, to call these figures “shocking” doesn’t do them justice. When the numbers landed on Thursday morning, I found myself, for once, utterly speechless. But the truth is, anger wasn’t my first reaction. What I felt, instead, was resignation. It’s not just that these numbers are terrible – it’s that they signal something far worse: damage that’s near impossible to reverse.

The most we can hope for now is to stop making things worse. Damage limitation is the name of the game. As the old saying goes: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

THE CHORUS AND CASSANDRA
Unfortunately, our political leaders haven’t grasped this. In fact, they seem to live by the opposite principle: when in a hole, keep digging.

Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called the Tories an “open borders” party and accused them of conducting an “experiment” like a mad scientist in an anarchist’s laboratory. He then went further, claiming this wasn’t an “accident” but a deliberate strategy born of political calculation:

“What we didn’t hear [from the Tories]… is an explanation. Because a failure on this scale isn’t just bad luck, it isn’t a global trend or taking your eye off the ball. No - this a different order of failure. This happened by design, not accident. Policies were reformed deliberately to liberalise immigration.”

For many, Starmer’s critique felt like a watershed moment. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch attempted to deflect by admitting her party had failed to “deliver,” but this only told half the story. Deliver, they did – but what they delivered was mass immigration, precisely as planned. Badenoch herself championed an uncapped immigration policy and openly worked alongside powerful lobbying groups, something she even boasted about in Parliament. Yet, this rather inconvenient fact has been swept under the rug. As I explained to @LeeAlanHall of @BritishThgtLdrs:

“Politicians haven’t lost control of immigration; politicians have surrendered control of immigration to various interest groups. And, of course, politicians have issued visas for humanitarian and foreign policy reasons. Now, these are intentional, deliberate choices.”

On this, Starmer and I agree. But while he’s nailed the diagnosis, his cure is all wrong. Labour’s refusal to cap visas, dismissing them as “arbitrary,” misses the point. Caps aren’t about mathematical perfection – they’re about drawing a line in the sand, about saying, ‘this far and no further.’ They act as a safeguard against the endless pressure from lobbyists and so-called ‘stakeholders’ who promise a moon on a stick if only we keep the borders wide open.

Even worse, Starmer is making the system even leakier. He’s bringing illegal immigrants into the asylum process, fast-tracking their claims without any plan for removals. Sure, Labour might manage a few token deportations to safe countries like Romania and Vietnam, but what about those from ‘unsafe’ hotspots like Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq? The law means they’ll stay – and they know it.

Starmer recently told the public that Britain’s political system isn’t just creaking; it’s rotten to the core and needs radical change. And he’s right about that. The trouble is, Starmer isn’t the revolutionary he pretends to be. He’s not tearing down the old framework – he’s doubling down on it.

Read 9 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Mike Jones

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @technopopulist

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

Mike Jones

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!