Southport is a seaside town in the northwest of England that looks quite a bit different than it did twenty years ago. There used to be a lot of young people living there, for one thing. And back in 2001, only around 4% of the population of Southport said they were born outside the UK. It was a pretty homogeneous place.

Twenty years later, a lot’s changed. And for the most part, it hasn’t changed for the better. As a longtime Southport politician named John Pugh put it recently: “Southport as an entity is struggling.” Southport’s now much older, mainly because young Britons no longer see much opportunity there. And they’ve been replaced, in many cases, by foreigners. One in ten residents now voluntarily report that they were born outside the UK. And many of them are bringing their religious beliefs with them, as you’d expect. Mosques — which were once found exclusively in large British cities like London and Birmingham — began popping up in Southport, as the UK added more than a million Muslims to its population in under a decade.

All of these changes have been accompanied by various indignities along the way. Last year, for example, British officials floated the idea of housing illegal migrants in Southport’s holiday park because it would be cheaper than paying for hotels. Illegal aliens had already taken over five hotels in the Liverpool area, only to complain that they were being mistreated. And rather than kick these ungrateful foreigners out of the country, Britain’s government attempted to offer them Southport’s holiday park as an accommodation, as well.

That episode was a pretty clear indication that Southport’s decline isn’t accidental. It’s deliberate. That’s why the British government doesn’t see a flood of illegal immigrants as a problem. They see it as an opportunity to shut down the local park. Every catastrophe is just more evidence that their plan is working. It’s yet another opportunity to degrade the lives of British citizens even further.

That’s true even after the massacre that took place on July 29. Police say a 17-year-old man entered a dance studio in Southport that was hosting a Taylor Swift-themed workshop for young children. Armed with a knife, he allegedly murdered three girls — ages 6, 7, and 9 — and seriously injured 10 others, including eight children. Organizers apparently tried to shield the children, and at least one was critically injured in the attempt.

When a police officer finally arrived, he waited before entering the studio because he only had a baton. Ultimately, after more than a dozen victims had been stabbed, the police went in and arrested the killer. That killer, who police have identified as Axel Rudakubana, was born in Britain to Rwandan parents who migrated to the UK roughly twenty years ago. Police haven’t provided any more information than that.

Following this deliberate and premeditated attack on children, fed up residents of Southport — and towns all across the UK — began engaging in varying degrees of civil disobedience. In Southport, locals threw objects at police officers and apparently lit a police vehicle on fire last week. Watch:

100 miles away in Rotherham, locals reportedly stormed a taxpayer-funded shelter for so-called “asylum seekers,” which of course is a euphemism for illegal aliens looking to abuse the asylum system:

Competent leaders — people who care about the future of their country — would look at scenes of civil disorder like this and ask themselves why exactly it’s happening.

It’s not enough to shake your fist and say that committing crimes during mass protests is a bad thing, although that’s generally true. That doesn’t address the problem. To do that, it’s important to figure out why people are so upset that they’re willing to commit crimes like this in broad daylight.

Is it because they’ve bought into years of lies about so-called “police violence” against black people, culminating in the false narratives about lifelong criminals like George Floyd, Jacob Blake and many others? That was the impetus for BLM, as we all know.

Or is it because, as was the case with January 6, people didn’t buy into government lies about lockdowns and mail-in voting and Russian collusion, culminating in an election in which Joe Biden somehow won millions more votes than Barack Obama did in 2008?

Or is it because, as is the case in Southport, people are tired of the decades-long government effort to reengineer the demographics of their entire country? Maybe these people are wondering how the alleged killer’s Rwandan parents arrived in Britain in the first place. Were they granted citizenship? If so, on what basis? If not, why are they still in the country? Those all seem like reasonable questions.

But Britain’s government isn’t answering any questions. Instead, Britain’s new prime minister Keir Starmer has announced a crackdown on the people who are on the internet saying things that he doesn’t like. Watch:

So Britain is establishing a plan to “tackle violent disorder” and to shut down “thugs.” And it sounds a lot like he’s going to use these protests as a pretext to establish a surveillance state. This plan will include “shared intelligence” and more “facial recognition technology.” It will even include “preventative action” to prevent people from committing crimes in the first place, like something out of “Minority Report.” And then for good measure, he threatens social media companies with criminal prosecution.

Throughout all of this, Keir Starmer claims that he’s not motivated in any way by the prospect of shutting down criticism of his country’s open borders policy. Instead, he says he’s really upset about civil disorder in general. Any time protests turn to arson or violence, Keir Starmer says he’s opposed to it. He’s been explicit about that. Watch:

It’s a “non-issue” to say that there’s a two-tier system of justice, says Britain’s new PM. It doesn’t matter what your motivation is. If you commit acts of “violence” on the streets, then your behavior won’t be tolerated.

This is the kind of claim that might be effective if video cameras and the internet had never been invented. As it stands, people can go back four years ago and see exactly what Keir Starmer said about the BLM riots — which caused more than a billion dollars in property damage and resulted in the deaths of at least two dozen people.

If you pull that tape, you’ll notice that Keir Starmer doesn’t condemn the violent BLM thugs a single time. He doesn’t mention the fact that they torched a police station in Minneapolis or a church outside the White House. Instead, he condemns anyone who tries to criticize them, much less arrest them. Watch:

Starmer was talking like this several days after BLM protests in London resulted in injuries to more than two dozen police officers. And this was after the BLM violence in the United States. The message is clear: Violence for state-approved purposes is fine. But dissent that humiliates the state, and that exposes its failures, will be crushed. Its proponents will be labeled as sources of “disinformation,” and they will be silenced.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Even allegedly conservative media in this country, to some extent, are buying into this framing. Fox News for example reported: “Riots erupt in UK after stabbing spree falsely blamed on asylum seeker.” Various other outlets have run similar stories. The idea is that, because this killer reportedly was born in Britain to Rwandan parents, the protests must be illegitimate.

Pause for a moment to consider the extraordinary degree of irony here. The same people who tell white Britons and white Americans that they’re colonizers and oppressors — people living on land that their ancestors conquered hundreds if not thousands of years ago — are now telling these same white Britons and Americans that they have no right to be upset about the flood of third world migrants colonizing their country. Only this is a different kind of colonization. It’s not the straightforward act of a stronger and more civilized society coming in and conquering the place, as has happened historically. Instead, it is colonization by subversion. Colonization orchestrated by the elites of the country that is being colonized. A kind of self-imposed colonization done not for the purposes of spreading civilization — which is why the Europeans colonized — but done for the purpose of destroying civilization. European colonizers brought civilization to uncivilized lands. In this case, uncivilized people are bringing chaos, poverty, and lawlessness to previously civilized societies.

Leftist activists would of course disagree with this characterization. In fact they say that if you stop this unchecked tidal wave of immigration, you would be losing civilization.

There’s a lot of commentary like this from an activist named Bushra Shaikh. She posted:

Take away the curries and kebabs. Take away the Tea. The coffee. Take away the doctors and nurses. The Ubers and buses. Take away the night workers. Take away the clothes.Take away the cleaners.Take it all away.It’s all foreign.These racists don’t understand.They will be left with very little.

Now, I’m a huge fan of curry myself. If I had to give it up in order to have law and order and civilization again, I would. Not a tough trade. But she goes further. She says even clothes and technology and transportation would be gone without the foreigners. We will be left with “very little.”

That’s an odd claim, isn’t it? After all, if all of the good things in life are brought to western countries by foreigners, then what are the foreigners coming for in the first place? If they are bringing everything, why bring it? Why not stay where they are? If western countries need these immigrants in order to thrive, then why aren’t their own countries thriving? That’s strange, you must admit. Apparently the West is gifted property by third world immigrants, and yet these immigrants have not given this gift to their own countries.

In any case, the Left is telling Britons that the son of newly-arrived Rwandan immigrants has every right to live in their country. And how dare you say otherwise. The moment you are born on British soil, you are British and no one can ask a single question about anything — including how your parents got there. Those are the rules now. And as usual, they only benefit people who aren’t white.

The residents of Southport have had enough of it. The riots we’re seeing across Britain right now are an inevitable reaction to years of unchecked immigration.

That doesn’t make the riots a smart strategic response. Strategically, it’s clear they will backfire. But the frustration and anger is understandable.

And no, the same logic does not apply to BLM. Reasonable people are capable of distinguishing between the BLM riots and the civil disorder taking place in the UK. The BLM riots occurred because the rioters didn’t like the fact that laws were being enforced. That’s why they wanted to defund the police. That’s why they created dozens of race hoaxes involving police officers.

What’s happening in the UK has the exact opposite explanation. People are revolting against a government that *refuses* to enforce the law. They want the government to fulfill maybe its most basic responsibility, which is to secure the border from foreign invasion.

That’s why no amount of social media censorship or “pre-crime” investigations or finger-wagging from Keir Starmer can change the fact that he now has two options as prime minister. He can commit to ending unrestricted illegal migration into Britain, and deporting illegal aliens currently living in the country. Or he can continue to demonize his own citizens and turn the rest of the UK into Southport. At this point, it’s clear that both options will lead to some level of unrest and even violence in Britain. The only question now is whether there will be a Britain left at the end of it.