The Evil of the Left in America.

People are getting into a shouting match about the latest shooting by ICE Agents in America. Let's be clear. If the woman that was pushed didn't intervene in the ICE operation, if the guy that was unfortunately shot didn't intervene in the ICE action as well, then he would be alive.

The left want these people to be killed. To prove a point. That is how evil they are. The left are whipping up tensions, agitating activists to get involved and directly confront ICE agents, with as seen, possibly lethal consequences. 

If the left backed off, If they stopped whipping up people to impede federal agents from doing their duty, then at least two people would be alive today.

But no, the left want the tension, the agitation, the aggression, so ICE agents will make mistakes and someone will get shot. 

They can't have people peacefully protesting and just holding placards at a safe distance, because that doesn't meet their requirements. 

And isn't it typical of the Left that they whip up tensions in other people, so it's other people that get shot, not the people at the top?

her Tory Defection to Reform.

With the Defection of Suella Braverman to Reform, I just wonder what the likelihood is of enough MPs moving to set Reform up as the opposition. Are we likely to see Nigel across the Isle sparring with Kier at PMQs instead of Kemi?

Could enough Tories defect before the next election I wonder?

Thoughts on WEF Guff...

I've been struck down with ManFlu since the middle of last week. Most of Social media was awash with the World Economic Forum and the Donald wanting his slice of Greenland. 

But in the dim dark corners, were a few talks by CEOs of technology companies. Including surprisingly, Elon Musk. I thought he was no friend of the WEF.

I was interested in what the various "experts" had to say about A.I. and robotics. 

Now, I know what my thoughts on the two are, but I was interested to see what they were predicting. 

Nothing but sunny uplands. Even if the A.I. and robots did all the jobs, all it would do is free us from the drudgery of everyday work.  

Except, there was no discussion of the mechanism of how that would come about. If there was any discussion, it seemed uneasy, stilted and very careful. 

You could see the WEF-class see the use of A.I. and robotics as a utopia, where robots would supply their every need. Unwavering, unchallenging, unquestioning, loyal, protective, servile robots. I imagine It's something like a Romanesque idyl, with robot slaves feeding the elites with grapes, whilst they recline on chaise lounges.

But if you have an A.I. and robot workforce, how do you feed the peasants that have been displaced from the job market? All those inconvenient, unworthy, unproductive, people.

Well, the real, stark answer that guests on the various panels avoided saying out loud is: you don't. 

Those of us that understand what's coming is that every A.I. and every Humanoid Robot introduced needs to be treated as a human worker from a Social Welfare aspect. So every company and every individual using these tools needs to pay as if they are employing an actual human. Thus the government should impose a tax similar to national insurance for each unit in use.

But then the fear is that will impose a drag on development. Any tax imposed on this new technology would reduce the ability of corporations to use it, and we all know that corporations get their way, so you can see that there is a very high chance that the scenario isn't Sunny uplands and huge benefits of cheap robotic labour for those of us at the bottom of the pile. The future is redundancy in the starkest meaning of the word. Not just from the job market, but from society.

I mean, the experts did say that some form of universal credit scheme should be introduced, with no detail on how that should be financed. I'm sure in the minds of the CEOs, the idea would be that someone else finances the payments to the plebs.

But this is where the intellectual pygmies of the WEF always falter: very lofty ambitions, without doing the deep dive into the implications and eventual outcomes. 

I for one am appalled every year by the WEF and what I hear coming out of it. 

Their original idea was to have a global workforce. Which then depressed wages across the globe as corporations moved work to the cheapest workforce.

Then there have been various cover stories like climate change in order to smokescreen what is actually going on, which is the de-industrialisation of the West. 

Than they had the great idea of bringing the cheap workforce into the West to depress wages for jobs that couldn't be offshored. Which has led to mass immigration and with it the societal change of the West. 

Now, the great idea is to scrap all that and go for a digital workforce. With the unsaid outcome that the majority of people without independent wealth starve to death.

Such nice people, the WEF people.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the WEF, what was with all the old ladies in leather? Lots of power dressing going on by the ladies. Looks to me as a sign of insecurity. 

On the Raising of The Military Service Reservist Age to 65

It's ridiculous. But an acceptance by the government that the size of the military has shrunk too far.

There are many posts on Facebook espousing the fact that the government did it to themselves: by doing down Britain and country as a concept, by making out that Britain is evil, it has put off a generation of youngsters from joing.

But that's not the real reason. 

I can have some sympathy with the fact middle-class youth have been brainwashed, but there are still swathes of the working class that understand loyalty to family, community and country. 

The left might hate the opinions and actions within the many council estates around the country, but those are the people the middle class rely on to do the fighting and dying in order to keep them safe. 

But even that isn't the reason. 

Silently, the number of illegal immigrants, men of fighting age, has risen above the number of personnel serving in the UK armed forces. You now have a block of fighting age men, allied to a single cause, a single religion, a cause and religion that opposes the very country that offers them a bed. 

There is now an army within the country, that outnumbers the ACTUAL Army of the UK. 

That has sent alarm bells throughout the halls of the MOD. Just what are they supposed to do if this imported army starts to rebel, to declare areas of the country independent of UK law? How would the government enforce UK law in that case?

They don't have the manpower to commit to such a task. Unless....

On Iran...

Sadly, I don't have much intel on the uprising in Iran. The Middle East has not been my favourite place and the wife still fails to understand why I find the whole region erm, displeasing.

She still wants me to visit family in Bahrain, but even with a sweetener of watching a Grands Prix I am inclined not to go. Steadfastly inclined.

Not that I can go into detail why, but I don't like the heat and sand.

We did visit Dubai, the city state being quite impressive, if you have the money to imbibe the lifestyle.

Anyway, I do feel that the Iranian uprising will go the way of Warsaw. People will be urged to rebel, with very little support from those who urge it. 

America has made big noises, but with little application. I don't see US Special Forces being committed to Iran to help destabilise the regime there. 

Israel may, but more likely may not help the revolution along. Because they know all too well that when it comes to Islamic revolutions, what comes out of them is usually not freedom, democracy and tolerance towards non-Muslim nations. 

Better the devil you know... 

Pssst! You Didn't Hear it Here, But Starmer May be Gone by The End of The Year.

Rumblings are that the latest Starmer U-turn (on Digital ID) is straining (if not yet breaking) the Camel's back of the Labour party.

Basically, the Labour faithful are being asked to got out into the public and justify the latest Starmer scheme against what turns out to be pretty solid and sensible criticism, only to have Starmer go "Oh Yeah" and do an about-turn three months later. 

Let's not forget that the whole government machine has been on-side with the government since September when he announced it. So all policies since then have been guided by the fact that Digital ID will be a reality. Then Poof!, it's gone. 

That's millions of pounds of government and civil service effort wasted. 

Let that sink in. The government that has raised the tax take to a historical high, is simultaneously wasting said tax hikes at an eye-watering rate.

The Labour faithful have had enough. 

Enough of the in-out, in-out shake it all about nature of Starmer's announcements. Too many kites flown, too much money wasted,  too embarrassing. 

Rumblings are that there will be at least a challenge for the leadership. 

Some are going further and threatening a seventies-style vote of no confidence. Because, for the good of the country this cannot continue and if what we have seen of the last 18 months is Labour's policy and a change of leader is just more of the same, then it may as well go. 

The thinking is, trigger an election now, while Reform is not fully fleshed out and let them fail spectacularly when they are voted into power. Then the next election will reinstate the status quo and signal the end of the public's experiment with alternative parties.

This is my warning to Reform: stop being the cult of Nigel. Get a credible shadow cabinet team in place and in the mind of the public. Let us see who is going to be in the positions of power so we can judge their character. NOW. 

Get the policies and actions ready NOW. 

Then if Labour trigger a snap election, you'll have a team ready to walk into power and start to dismantle the globalist charter started by Tony Blair. Eradicate the restrictive political straightjacket he placed on Parliament and let's get back to the freedom and accountability we had back in the 1990s.

Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart Illustrating my Point Perfectly.

I just saw this short in YouTube. Two seriously deluded old duffers completely missing the point and reinforcing my point that the political elite in Europe see themselves not as an ally of America.

It just reinforces the opinion of the Trump administration that Europe isn't the steadfast ally it used to be. 

They're actually talking about putting troops on Greenland in order to protect it from the Americans. Yeah, using tech that the Yanks make unserviceable at a moment's notice? 

Good Luck with that.

This rhetoric surprises me, because Rory Stewart was in the Military. He should know the realities of Warfighting and should know better given his tenure in the Foreign Office and his proximity to military intelligence..

But both are committed Socialists. They live in the Socialist bubble. They are indicative of the thinking inside the Political Elite in Europe. Utterly ideologically captured.

"OrangeMan Bad" therefore they are willing to scrap a decades old alliance against Russia, go to war with what should be an ally. I'm beginning to think they really prefer Communism to Capitalism.

This is what happens when the Left swing too far to the left. People that stay in the middle of politics suddenly look like the extremists. But it's the far left that have moved to extremism, not the moderates.

America is sat there scratching it's head asking why Europe is turning into a Socialist authoritarian shithole.

What's Going on With Greenland?

The media make Trump out to be some cartoonish despot intent on ripping Greenland from the hands of poor Denmark.

The slightly more informed make out that this is an attack by Trump on NATO and the alliance.

In reality, there's a lot more in the background going on.

The main reason for Trump's claim on Greenland, is it's of huge strategic significance in the North American geographic area. It provides land for bases that America uses to defend itself against the Russian threat.

Under normal circumstances, Greenland under Danish control is a friend to the Americans and gladly accedes to any requests for land for American requirements.

Trump's claims reflect the breakdown in the relationship between American and the European Elites.

It's quite clear that the European political class is no friend of Trumps. 

We have seen it with the comments by David Lammy and other European political leaders. The European political elite is staunchly socialist (Communist) in it's political outlook (the reasons for which I've already blogged about) and hate Trump. 

Trump is airing in public in his typical way that he regards Europe not as a political ally. He regards Denmark and their leadership not as political allies also. He's stating that if the attacks on Trump, America and American companies (especially tech companies) and the First Amendment continue, he will use American force to "stabilise" the Greenland situation.

Right now, Greenland under Danish control is not considered as an allied administration by the Trump government.   

What does America do when it sees effectively hostile forces in close proximity? It neutralises them. Greenland is fast becoming the new Cuba.

All I'm hearing at the moment on the media is that Europe must band together against America. 

Bad Move guys.....

And just think, if Europe succumbs to the Muslim influx in 10 or 20 year's time, all the nukes, all the weapons, territory and manpower that Europe possesses will be in alignment against America. By then NATO is just a note in a history book anyway. 

Trump is just ahead of the curve.

Why Asylum Seekers Get Preferential Treatment

 ,,, And if you think they don't, you are an idiot.

I have commented on many post on X, YouTube regarding asylum seekers getting preferential treatment when it comes to housing, and why that is the case, and I think I need to flesh it out here to sort of put a pin in it, so to speak.

Anyone who says asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment is delude, lying, or just plain misinformed. Our government has, by the treaties it has signed up to, given asylum seekers statutory status, which means legally they are bound to provide services to them. Where no such statutory duties exist for normal citizens born here.

The first, is the 1951 Refugee Convention:

Core principles of the 1951 Convention

The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

The document outlines the basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, including the right to housing, work and education while displaced so they can lead a dignified and independent life. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status.

In addition, it details the legal obligations of the States that are party to one or both of these instruments.

The convention, as stated above, disallows the receiving state from instantly returning the asylum seeker, or refusing entry to the country. We have to receive them.

The next point is that under the Convention, asylum seekers are granted certain rights, by law (because they are part of the convention we signed up to).

So, asylum seekers as stated, have the right to housing, education, medical care, etc.

Again, under UK law, ordinary citizens have no such "rights". Which is why funds and services are given to asylum seekers before ordinary citizens.

So when politicians say that asylum seekers aren't at the head of the queue when it comes to housing. They are lying. The 1951 Convention give those asylum seekers the right to housing. A right that you don't have. So they get put in housing before you and your family, who have lived here since birth and have been on the housing list for decades.

It's also why preferential medical services are provided to Asylum Seekers. That's why they get access to a Doctor nurse and dentist with almost private standards of care. You don't get that, because the government aren't forced to provide it to you by law. But asylum seekers...

This is the loophole exploited by traffickers. EVERYONE that arrives in a dinghy instantly claims asylum, whether they are fleeing a war, persecution or even if they are not. 

I'd say they aren't, given that France, the last country they came from, isn't some bomb-ravaged craterscape.

But, that's the mechanism they exploit.

But now here comes the double-whammy of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is the law that we signed up to that affords even criminals the right to family life. So for instance we already have to house asylum seekers, but the ECHR now makes it law that we can't just put them anywhere, we have to consider their family. By family, that's their extended family of cousins, aunties, etc. In other words we have to put them all together. By law. Creating an enclave for them. Even wondered why they all appear in a single area? Now you know.

We can't say "we've found a suitable house for you in Scotland". They have rights. The right to live with the other 34 members of their family that have come across in a rubber dinghy. 

While we are considering their asylum application, if the rights they have don't give them enough, if they go out and steal stuff, it's the ECHR that stops us saying "Sorry mate, but by stealing you have proved you're not the type of person we would like to accept into our country" and deport them. 

First, the process takes so long that it gives them time to find some desperate fat ugly bird, have sex with them and have a kid. And then instantly the asylum seeker gains family ties to the UK through the poor sprog born in this country. 

Just to interject, there is a correlation that most fat ugly birds are left-leaning politically, so that's a driver for why they would want a never-ending stream of "boyfriends" from Somalia. 

Of course there are only so many fat ugly birds, the supply is limited. the desperation of the asylum seekers mounts up. Their instructions are to have sex with a girl in the UK and get her pregnant. 

So we get desperate asylum seekers trying to shag any girl or woman they see. Possibly a driver for the massive number of rapes we are seeing perpetrated by them. That's not to make light of the crime of rape. But if you are from Somalia and you've been told the gravy train absolutely relies on you getting a British girl pregnant, it is your primary mission to avoid being sent back to your shithole country, then you're gonna do the deed with anything bar a corpse. Finesse, courting, charm, all go out the window. 

And anything old enough to get pregnant is fair game too.

Shag the bird, get her pregnant, make sure she doesn't have an abortion (tell her it's against your religion or something) and has the kid and then you are set for life with those welfare payments you and your 34 cousins can send to your gangster Gran back home.

This just scrapes the surface of the drivers and legislation involved.

But if anyone says that asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment, our better treatment, or are prioritised above normal citizens, then  tell them they are talking bollocks. They are, because it is the law.