The Evil of Political Correctness.

I've blogged before about how I consider the politically correct, virtue signalling woke middle class as essentially the personification of evil. But I've never really tried to put into words how evil or why I think they are evil and they musty be eliminated at all cots.

Okay, here goes.

Is it evil to deliberately condemn your daughter to a life with fewer rights than you?

Is it evil to deliberately condemn your granddaughter to a life as a second class citizen?

Is it evil to undo the centuries worth of hard-fought women's rights just so you can look good?

To me it is pure evil. It's the worst kind of evil to deliberately destroy your children's future just to look good to your neighbours or the dinner party circuit.

Is it evil to condemn your country to a future of unenlightened radical religious zealotry?

As they say, ignorance is no defence. You cannot defend accepting millions on Muslim immigrants into the country to look sanctimonious and not understand the consequences of your actions for future generations. If that's your defence, you are worse than evil. You are evil and a willing idiot.

I cannot comprehend how people cannot see what is happening before their own eyes. Are they really so blind? Or are they ignoring the consequences of their actions?

Can they not see things that are happening now and extrapolate what the future would be like?

Are they happy to submit to Muslim rule then? Are they happy for their female children and grandchildren to second-class citizens?

Are they waiting for someone else to do something about it?

Are they really that evil?

I guess so. I can see it, a significant number of people can see it, but why do the middle classes think it's acceptable to virtue your country into oblivion?

Do they really have no conviction, no patriotism, no sense of religion? Are they so morally bankrupt?

Genuine questions. I guess even the middle classes can't answer me because they don't see the evil in their stance. To them they are being kind, politically correct, virtuous, you name it. Without looking at the future.

I'm On The Right of Centre Politics, But I Support Taxing Billionaires.

You'd think that if I was on the right of centre politically, I'd support the rich enjoying the fruits of their labours in the form of lower taxation, but I don't.

If I, at the lower end of the scale are paying over 50% of the money I earn in the various income taxes, VAT and Stealth taxes, then I believe that the rich should also pay exactly the same percentage. 

After all, isn't that fair? 

I pay a third of my wage in income tax, National Insurance, NEST payments and that's before I start to pay VAT on everything I buy (remember when VAT was a luxury tax?). Then I pay tax on insurance, on my pension payments, if I want to fly from an airport on holiday. 

So the amount I pay in tax eventually comes to be over 50%.

So, why shouldn't billionaires pay the same? Why are they allowed to swap earnings for dividends which attract less tax?

Now I'm altogether against the IR35 tax rules that class independent contractors as employees, because it treads on the transition from PAYE to self-employed, but when it comes to passive wealth, that is earning income from huge savings, there has to be some trimming of the fat.

If you have several hundred million in savings, investments, property, etc. you are earning quite a bit moving that money around, buying property to let out (the favourite of millionaires because the primary asset increases in value along with the monthly rental income).

I can see an argument for not taxing increases in property portfolios under (say) two or three million pounds. That sort of protect the single house owner that bought a house in London almost a century ago and now own a million pound plus house. Taxing over 5 million in savings would also protect the majortity of people.

I'm talking of second, third and above properties. Those should be taxed because they are not homes for the owner, they are investments. Taxing them or making it difficult to own large numbers of dwellings should encourage billionaires to own fewer properties, releasing them for the likes of you and me. 

The whole capital gains tax system needs to be reworked, so that a lid is put on massive property investment, so possibly a sliding scale with an increasing percentage in tax for each extra property in the portfolio. 

There needs to be some way of taxing unearned income as closely as earned income. 

And as long as you hold a UK passport and you earn the money within the UK borders, you pay the tax here.

The same goes for corporations. No matter where your head office is, if you transact with a UK citizen and/or deliver to a UK address, you pay UK tax on the item inside the UK. No special treatment for Amazon, eBay and PayPal, for instance.

Foreign nationals should pay their fair share here and not syphon money abroad tax-free.

Those that can afford an extra one percent need to start paying it. In most cases it's us the ordinary people that helped you get that money, so it's only fair you pay some back and help us out, rather than sit on it and accrue ever-increasing wealth.

The tax system needs changing so that the transition from working class to middle class or the equivalents in earnings, is a light one. We need to encourage betterment and aspiration and entrepreneurship.

But I'm talking not about millionaires so much as several-multiple millionaires, where 1% tax on earnings of any type is a drop in the ocean to the multi-millionaire, but a significant sum to someone on benefit. 

And I don't subscribe to clobbering individuals or companies. A light touch at the top of earnings, skimming off the fat and dissuading the excessive behaviour and holding onto large amounts of property and continuing to amass huge passive wealth and not spending it (in other words putting it back into the economy) is what I'm proposing.

Farage's Fall a Chance for UKIP to Regain Momentum?

 I think it's becoming clear that Nigel Farage isn't the great hope we thought he was. He's walked back from the stop immigration and deport everyone stance people thought he had. I mean, he made the right noises, but thankfully Rupert Lowe has pointed out the difference between Nigel's perceived position and his actual one.

So, where to go from here?

Well, Rupert could start up an entirely new party that supports his viewpoint and somehow grow it organically in 4 years so it has a party structure and enough candidates to field in the next election.

Yeah, kinda impossible without a shit-ton of money and donors brave enough to shrug off the labels of racist.

I'd be the ideal candidate, because I believe the people promoting the current status quo are evil. They are supporting the draining of the world's health professionals to provide cheap labour for the NHS instead of training  UK nationals.  I think they are evil for allowing the UK to go backwards on the concept of rights and freedoms. The freedom of speech and the rights and freedoms of women are at risk. People that support immigration and the Islamification of the UK are evil and are effectively abusers of future generations. 

So, what do we do?

We need a party that is ready to go, with a structure and a local membership that we can get behind.

Arise UKIP. Sadly you didn't change your name after Brexit to reflect your broader strategy, but beggars can't be choosers. Personally, I'd have renamed UKIP to the Christian Conservative Party, or something of that ilk.

UKIP need to be swamping Social Media right now, with hundreds of messages, that show where they differ from the more moderate Reform. Get the message out, thump it home. Closed borders, no immigration, a complete split from Europe, rearmament of UK armed Forces, training of UK nationals instead of draining the world for talent, reversal of the need for degrees in the Police and Nursing professions, emphasis on vocational courses, an emphasis away from elitist influences, so democratisation of the law, repeal of most of what Tony Blair brought in. The return of double jeopardy so the Police have to do their job and gather overwhelmingly substantial evidence to prosecute and cannot constantly and maliciously harass defendants with constant court cases. Dropping Net Zero and a return to a sensible energy policy based on resources available within the UK.

I could go on, but it's up to UKIP to now get the message out and come to the fore. I want to see one message on UKIP policy every day. And I want it to be clear and concise. I want voters to know the difference between what Reform say and what Reform actually believe and what they will do.

No personal attacks, just policy where the two parties demarcate significantly and promotion of the personalities within UKIP. promotion of their cabinet, who is there at the top and responsible for health, borders, immigration etc. Let's get to know these people as a team and individually. Let's get them as famous as the Reform five (now four) MPs.

UKIP can do it, but it needs to be doing it now. 

Farage Keeps Digging.

It now appears to be getting clearer the spat within Reform is about immigration. Rupert Lowe wants zero immigration and an organised deportation of those illegal immigrants already here.

Nigel Farage doesn't want to go that far.

Excuse me? The guy that wants to stop the boats and did chauffeur-driven tours of hotels being converted into migrant camps doesn't want to stop spending the millions of pounds of our money being paid to house the migrants?

What exactly does he want then? 

Because Nigel talks the talk, but whatever he appears to signal, isn't the thing you're getting if you back him.

Basically it's the same as saying Brexit is easy and then forgetting the complexities around Northern Ireland. Whether contrived or not, he should have had answers to N.I. ready formed, before he glibly said that Brexit was simple.

But here we go again, Nigel chants "Stop the boats!", people think he means stop immigration, but actually if you dig deeper... 

I did say that I'd had enough of Nigel. I got sucked in to UKIP last time and I refused to join whatever entity (party, corporation, subscriber list) that Reform is. 

I hope that this time around, Farage is seen for what I see him as: a distraction, a decoy, a mouthpiece that says the right thing. Someone that says one thing, but in reality does something quite different. 

People are now calling him controlled opposition, and I can see that. But if he is someone that is put in place to guide the right of centre away from power, who is controlling or funding him? Are we going to see someone digging deep into Reform's finances and uncovering skeletons like Soros?

Right now it appears to me that Nigel had been nobbled. I've said before that the signs are he's a lot more moderate on the Islam question that he appears to be. 

Is that a question of funding, or is a it more an acceptance of reality that the UK will become Islamic in a decade or so and he'd rather like to be a friend of the Mullahs rather than an enemy? Because we know what happens to anyone that the Mullahs perceive as an enemy don't we?

I really need Nigel to come clean as to his intentions. Is he for saving our Judeo-Christian values, or not? Is he for the protection of Women's rights, or is he happy for them to become second-class citizens under Islamic rule? He needs to stop playing with the future of the UK, there is too much at stake.

We need transparency from Reform NOW. What exactly is their game?

Because we really only have the next election to save the UK and to preserve our Western civilisation.

What's Going on With Politics?

Ignore Trump, I'm watching with interest his attempts to disrupt the global status quo.

I'm talking about UK and European politics. What. The. Fuck. is going on?

I mean, you have Starmer who appears to have the intellectual nous of a Peanut. You have all the European politicians hell bent on causing world war three. 

Starmer can't stand criticism, very much like Nigel Farage it appears. The difference is Starmer is in power and dangerously so for free speech. Starmer MUST have been bullied when he was at school, because his first instinct is to lash out and use the full force of the government like a sledgehammer. 

He WILL MAKE you conform to his idea of acceptable behaviour, including acceptable speech, using the full force of the government.

He deems it acceptable to use the law and the violence of the Police to enforce his view of acceptability. For him there is no concept of free speech. What he wants is correct speech whether it's compelled by force or otherwise. He doesn't like to hear harsh words and being an ex-lawyer, will use the law to make to say nice things and tell him the world is full of Unicorns and smells of Rose petals. Not the utter shitehole that he and his class of professional have made the UK.

In other words, Kier Starmer is a cunt. A massive cunt.

Of course the hangers-on in the cabinet, the deadlegs who are only there through Union largesse, or because they are so useless they don't pose a threat to Starmer's reign (I'm looking at you Angela (thick as Pigshit) Rayner) don't have a fucking clue as to what should be legal, illegal allowed or made illegal. They just join in with Starmer laughing and giggling like schoolkids in a playground gang. 

But how did we get to this? Where effectively the worst dregs of society gets to lead us into almost certain oblivion? 

How did we get to the point where the most corrupt politicians get into power?

I'm pasty the point now. It needs to be said and fuck the consequences. Starmer is a Cunt and so are his cunty cabinet. 

At the other end of the spectrum, we get Farage, who yet again is risking the success of yet another party he's almost brought to power by being another Royal Cunt like Starmer. He fucked UKIP up big time and here we are yet again. Farage the nearly-man, failed by his ego.

Sacking Rupert Lowe was the most egregious and cuntish move imaginable. Yes, have disagreements, but don't act like a spoiled brat and sack him. Agree to disagree, for the greater good of the right. 

Either Farage couldn't bring himself to do it, or possibly Zia Usif did the deed out of a fit of pique to support the dear leader Farage.

Either way, after this and Farage's previous statements on not deporting illegals. I'm done with Reform. 

I will refuse to vote and suffer the consequences. Thank fuck I only have a few years left in teh tank.

Then the country can go fuck itself into oblivion in an orgy of pink LGBTQ+ Unicorns being thrown off tall buildings by Muslim extremists.

Welcome to your future, you bunch of self-serving political fucknuggets.

Reform Shenanigans: I Called it Months Ago.

When Nigel Farage did the Winston Marshall Interview and shockingly to most people declared that he wouldn't immediately deport the illegal immigrants I made a post here about it.

Basically I said he'd been nobbled. 

I was also severely critical of his stance in that interview that there wasn't much he could do about illegals already here. Excuse me?

And, I pointed out that he'd had the talk. You know, the one where a hand is placed lightly on the shoulder, and quiet words are spoken, like the wisest of sages imparting eternal wisdom...

The quiet words spoken that you mustn't upset the Muslims, because they own between 10 to 20 percent of the country. They are imbedded in the City of London, new start-ups, shares, investments, infrastructure, ports, housing, property, universities, you name it, the Gulf States have a significant investment in it.

If you look at most new investment opportunities, you'll see that a Gulf state investment fund will have an investment in it. If you look at infrastructure, or property, the big projects will have significant Gulf investment funds put into them. The same when it comes to corporations or operators of infrastructure: the Gulf state money is there. They are a significant investor in the company that operates our major container ports, for instance. Gulf money is hugely invested in large buildings in London. If you are a company renting office space, the chances are the company you are paying rent to will be owned in some significant way by Gulf Money.

The Universities have over the decades accepted Gulf investment money to build new buildings. The one that comes to mind is Oxford's Said business school. 

Detailed in Wikipedia here.

Gulf money is everywhere. And if the Gulf states so desired, it could be withdrawn in an instant. 

Companies would collapse, housing, property prices would crash, investments would tumble, universities would shut down.

Now what would you do if someone had whispered such realities into your ear? Would you toe the line and allow the current status quo to continue, or would you crash everything?

I know which way I would go. But I'm a sociopath: I don't care about other people, I only care about what is right. 

I would be whispering right back how it would be a pity it Mecca were reduced to radioactive glass, if the centre of the Islamic world were suddenly to be evaporated.

I would whisper back that likewise, it would be a pity if the cities of the Gulf states followed the same fate. 

I would whisper back that I would offer not one iota of sympathy with the displaced and those forced to live in an unforgiving, Radioactive desert.

I would quietly assert that such funds as they were embedded in the UK, would not be allowed to leave. We would be taking such funds as blood money to soothe the collective soul of the UK in payment for the blood and treasure lost over the past two and a half decades. 

Fuck with my country? Fuck you, would be my earnest reply. 

Sadly, our so-called leaders do not have the balls to do likewise, it appears. They continue to take the money at the expense of their fellow citizens and the religious and cultural future of their country.

Nigel Farage: I'm Done with Him. Time for a Christian Conservative Party?

The latest shenanigans in the Reform Party have now put me off Nigel Farage completely. In my opinion, he is not fit to be the leader of the party running the country.

This is the second time that Farage has trashed a party that was on the cusp of gaining a foothold in politics for the right of centre. Back with UKIP, he allowed disaffected Tories to join and within months the party had collapsed.

The same has happened with Reform.

Over the winter, we've seen defections of Councillors and MPs from the Tories to Reform, and then all of a sudden we get the sacking of Reform MP Rupert Lowe and an instant attack on Lowe in the form of a complaint of sexual harassment.

It's quite clear now that Farage can't stand criticism, or dissenting voices within a party he creates. The measure of a leader is the way they conduct themselves and Farage seems to be incapable of showing true leadership. 

Farage appears to be a showman. End of. He appears not to be a leader flexible enough or strong enough in his convictions to allow flexibility in the party and for policy to form organically based on a group of like-mined people creating it.

He also seems to say one thing and then say something entirely different some time later.

For instance with UKIP, he wanted the split of the UK from Europe, without detailing how this would work, especially with regard to the Northern Ireland border. To Nigel, it was simple: just leave. Without understanding the detail of how that would happen. 

Now with the immigrant issue, Farage chants "stop the boats!", but then when pressed on detail, he said he wouldn't deport the illegal immigrants already here. Why not? In the public eye, the two are indivisible. 

This is where Farage and Lowe differ in policy and I suspect, Farage differs with the majority of Reform supporters. 

My opinion is that both legal and illegal immigration should be stopped immediately. Also illegal immigration should be forcibly stopped, so the boats should be turned round and taken back to France, and the illegals already here should immediately be deported back to the country they came from.

While immigration is stopped, there should be incentives for training of UK citizens to meet the demand for personnel by corporations. As illegals are deported and hotel money is freed up, that money should be then directed to training courses for UK citizens. NHS courses should be started and a vocational route for NHS nurses restarted so that the NHS can start to recruit from inside the UK, rather than stripping the undeveloped world of the best and the brightest.

As it stands, my opinion is that Farage is not suitable to be Prime Minister. He will not be able to be flexible enough to install policy that doesn't quite meet his requirements. I'm convinced he will attack anyone that cannot meet his requirements, includ8ing civil servants and in the end, it will be a complete clusterfuck if he gets into number 10 Downiung street.

In other news, is it time for a Christian Conservative Party? It seems that the Muslim influence gets everywhere and possibly it's time for a primarily Christian Party to come to the fore, to refuse Muslim money and votes, just to test how entrenched Islam is in UK politics.

The Monarchy is No Longer Relevant.

The current trendy idea is that hereditary titles are so last century and no longer fit for the modern world.

Blair did it with the House of Lords, ejecting hereditary peers and replacing them with hand-picked replacements.

But are hereditary titles a dead duck? I mean, there's a train of thought that says that hereditary titles provide stability, ignoring the latest trends.

Yes, you can be swayed by the Lefty jealousy-induced indignation, the talk of the old-boys-club, the use of the term landed gentry as a slur. But money brings a certain amount of incorruptibility. 

Small fish with small pockets can be bought for small money or small favours. 

In America, Elon Musk is trampling all before him because he literally can't be bought. He has ALL the money. In order to influence him, you'd have to0 be a fairly substantial government offering up a substantial amount of their GDP.

But here is where I get to the monarchy and especially the intellectual pigmy that is King Charles. I've already blogged elsewhere about his current failure to be protector of the faith (as in the Church of England). Instead Charles seems bent of promoting any faith other than the C of E. Recently we've had a mass Iftar at Windsor Castle. 

Now it may be the media: you know, promoting how inclusive our King is by promoting the mass Iftar and decided to ignore a mass Lent celebration, or maybe there's some upcoming Easter celebration that the King will be hosting and the media aren't going to report on it?

But is the Monarchy relevant if it chases the latest trend, if it chases the multicultural spectrum, if it eschews stability?

After all, isn't that one of the prime requisites of the Monarchy, to provide stability through the ages? To provide that sense of country, that sense of (especially in the UK where the monarch is head of the Church) a sense of Faith? 

Without the stability, without protecting the Faith, what is the British monarchy? What is the monarch?

You cannot "just" abandon the age old traditions and somehow miraculously stay relevant. You actually become irrelevant, slave to the latest trends and fanciful ideas. Relevant only for as long as the trends flow with you.

Already the questions are being asked by the faithful: if the head of the Church no longer believes in the Church, why should we? If the Monarch no longer believes in the country he reigns over, why should we? Has the monarch abandoned Christianity, given he promotes alternative lifestyles and faiths so readily? 

The longer Charles continues with these trendy ideas, and dalliances with alternative lifestyles and religions in direct opposition to his oaths, the more the doubts about his suitability to the post of monarch will be raised.

And the big question should be asked in unison by those called upon to defend this country in times of war: If the Monarch and the government no longer have faith in Britain as a country, or Christianity as a Faith, then why should we lay down our lives for it, or them?