More on the Psychopathic Woman.

The link to Female Psychopathy and woke was a kind of revelation. It answered quite a lot of basic questions. 

Questions that didn't have answers in a sane world. But to add Psychopathy into the mix and then it becomes clear.

As I've said, Female Psychopathy has a major influence on Woke. The Psychopathic female uses fake empathy for a cause to hide her own lack of empathy and signal her virtue and status to others. Factors she covets above all others and uses as a screen or shield against criticism from others.

But female Psychopathy also then answers the phenomenon of Trans kids. Children of a very young age being transitioned. BY THEIR PARENTS.

Again, the empathy towards their children is not real, it's manufactured to again gain status and virtue. Things the Psychopathic Woman doesn't possess. 

A normal nurturing woman will most likely take a child that is saying they wany to be the opposite sex, or a cat, or something that is clearly fantasy, and let them play with it. But only in the terms of play, understanding that at some point the child will tire of the notion and revert back to normality.

Not the Psychopathic Woman. She will latch onto that difference and process that the child is unhappy not being a cat and therefore they must be a cat, must actually be a cat, in order to make them happy.

And so the Psychopathic Woman will take the child's fantasy to a point above and beyond a level that any sane person would. I reckon that if there was some way to surgically change the child into an actual cat, then she's force the child through that procedure. Because making the child happy is a mother's job isn't it? Look at how good a mother I am, by surgically altering my child to be the thing they want to be.

As it stands, the only recourse available to the Psychopathic Woman with a cat-child, is to force EVERYONE ELSE to accept that her child is actually a cat. Family, the school, doctors, and other professionals that interact with the child.

Because denying the unreality of the situation would make her child unhappy.

Psychopathy also answers in some way the rise of what is colloquially known as the Karen. Basically a woman who will interfere and claim some fake superiority over their victim.

I'm not yet at a point to understand what has caused the rise of this psychopathy. It's possibly because it has allowed to rise. The freedom of women to express themselves has allowed the number of psychopathic women able to express themselves or be in a position to impose those views and beliefs on the wider world has occurred.

It's possible that in this modern world, the Psychopathic Woman has never been told No, or has had her "stranger" tendencies suppressed in childhood. 

And to be clear, this is not a misogynist rant. I'm quite comfortable with women in general. This is an observation I've made, looking at the modern phenomenon of woke and the conclusions I've made.

I like all women, even the Psychopathic ones, but the observation is there are distinct types of women, as there are distinct types of men. But you never see the nurturing type of woman involved in activism, or the manipulation of society.

I have a feeling the nurturing type of woman would understand that suicidal empathy, of signaling virtue to the detriment of wider society is lunacy. 

Because it is.

Woke: The Product of Psychopathic Women?

Okay,  I've had an insight into the reason that the country and the West in General is in the Fucking Mess it's in right now.

Psychopathic Women.

More generally, we have let Psychopathic Women into positions of authority and power. 

Let me explain. 

Psychopathic women are more likely to be career women and are more likely to compete with men directly in a men's world. They are driven, competitive, all the things required to succeed in a competitive, dog-eat-dog male dominated space.

Most women are nuturing, and don't really care for all the elbows-out edgy competition of the boardroom. You're not likely to see a nurturing type of woman in a boardroom. They're happy to be at home looking after kids. Or if they have to, take a small job, possibly as a care worker, or maybe a assistant at school. In my day they were dinner ladies.

But, oh boy, the other end of the spectrum is the Psychopathic Woman. She revels in the competition, she'll bury her competition, destroy them, usually through reputational damage. She is totally ruthless and you can rate her success on the number of bodies she leaves in her wake.

You find them on the board of large corporations, charities, local government, the post office and the civil service. See also female MPs. Generally they are useless at the job they are employed to do, because they priority is their reputation. They use other people to do their job for them. She uses underlings to bolster her status and gladly burns them out and casts them aside to maintain it.

I met one once, when I went for a job interview. All the terms of the job were agreed in interview, I was a good fit and was offered the job. A week later I was contacted by her and told I could have the job only if I accepted a 25% pay cut. 

I'm not a huge pussy, so I told her where to go. It was an absolute no from me and she was welcome to go and find someone elsewhere who could do the job for that money. 

And that's the sort of woman I'm talking about: deceptive, manipulative, ruthless, and without a shred of morality or decency. If you offered someone a job at a certain salary, and that was the salary offered before the interview, it was agreed and shaken on in the interview, who in their right mind would then phone up a week later and say "actually, I was thinking of paying you considerably less money than we agreed on".

That's not etiquette, that's not how you build loyalty. But the Psychopathic woman doesn't care, doesn't value those things. You're just another body in her wake to the top. She's crushed the souls of so many people to get to that point, you're another victim.

But where does woke come into this, I hear you ask?

Well, the Psychopathic woman uses virtue signaling to cover her lack of natural empathy. She will virtue signal HARD.

Her lack of true empathy means she will virtue signal a company into the ground (sound familiar?).

Her lack of empathy means she will virtue herself out of existence. And here comes woke. The Psychopathic woman will virtue signal men into women's spaces, will virtue signal rapists into those spaces and berate the woman who was raped for highlighting the problem, because it interferes with her virtue.

Another example being the Rape Gangs. How a woman can argue against the wrongness of the rape of another woman staggers me. But we have huge numbers of women excusing the rape of children, because the virtue afforded by the promotion of diversity trumps (in their mind and their social spaces) the virtue of saving kids from being gang raped. 

Another example is the woman who blocked the ICE convoy in America and was surrounded by ICE agents with guns. Any normal woman would have stopped and complied once the agents drew their guns. But not the Psychopathic woman. She will continue past the point that any sane person would. She got shot in the face for it. 

There are plenty of instances of clearly Psychopathic women being interviewed and you get the sense they would insist that black is white in order to secure some tenuous virtue or reputational point over their interviewer. The same applies if the Psychopathic woman is the interviewer: she will do her utmost to trap the person she is interviewing in some sort of gotcha moment, in order to raise her social status and virtue.

For instance calling someone a racist for enquiring about the reasons and mechanisms why a large proportion of Pakistani men are child rapists. There's that social status hierarchy at play again. Raped working class kids aren't half as valuable in the virtue stakes as promoting the importation of families from war torn countries. And even if you try to burst the Psychopathic bubble and show evidence they aren't families, they are 90% fighting age male coming into the country, they will refuse to believe it.

Psychopathic. Up to to the point of eradicating all that affords them the comfort of their cushy (usually middle-class) societal bubble. Even as the Muslim hoards are wrapping the Burka round her head and enforcing it by beatings, as the female rights her grandmothers and great-grandmothers won by protesting even to the point of death are eroded, the Psychopathic woman will be trumpeting the how eradicating all of those hard-won rights affords HER some higher status above her peers.

Psychopathic women, I feel are responsible for the rise of woke. They are also responsible for a lot of other new malaises that have started to corrupt society.

The thing to look out for is that claim of a raise of status above her peers. The latest efforts to "think of the Children" and censor the internet, ban kids off it, and now to ban VPNs because the kids can use them to get around the laws the adults created. 
All are the result of some form of fake virtue, some claim for faux status to raise her up compared to her peers.

New Land Tax: We've Been Here Before.

Thatcher came up with the poll tax. A tax based on the value of your property and payable, divided between the adults in the house.

When that happened, we had riots in the streets. The Poll tax riots of 1990

The Socialists revolted, because they had to pay part of the bill that their parents typically paid.

The government then relented and although notionally based on the value of your property (set in bands) council tax was per household. The bands created a reasonable variation between upper and lower bands. Because we're all paying for the same services, it's reasonable to expect to pay a similar amount, with those better off paying a slightly higher cost. With this new system, how can government justify demanding 300 quid from one household and 48 grand from another for the same service?

It wasn't a percentage of the value of the property up to an unlimited value, there was at least an upper limit, controlled by the tax bands.

Now we have the idea of a land tax, based on a percentage of the value of the property, with no upper limit.

If I had a house worth £1 million, my tax liability would be £48,000, more than any wage I've ever earned in my life. In fact I currently earn half that figure. So for me, owning a million pound house is completely out. Thanks Labour.

So how do Labour intend to limit the land tax based on the ability to pay? 

Or is this a way of freeing up expensive properties by seizing them from people that can't pay? New HMOs for the migrants?

Also, I can't say that the charity Omaze and similar charities are happy about this. They buy high value properties, and raffle them off for charity. 

Now currently, you could aspire to owning such a property, because the council tax on it wouldn't be higher than your annual earnings. It won't even be close to rental costs. So it makes sense to have a punt on the charity and hopefully live the high life in a million pound mansion.

A land tax kills that model instantly. Why would you want to be saddled with a tax liability that takes years of salary to earn? 

It kills aspiration. Which is a typical socialist scumbag move. Let's drag everyone down to our level of misery, because they're jealous of your wealth.

Sinister Moves Afoot Regarding Legislation Changes.

The recent announcement that the government had just repealed the Vagrancy act has got my Spider Senses tingling.

I've blogged before that despite protestations from the lefties, people who claim asylum have rights given to then by the UN charter on refugees. 

The government of the country they claim asylum in has a statutory duty to provide housing , etc. The things we're already seeing like hotels, HMOs, etc.

As I have blogged previously, there is no such statutory obligation when it comes to housing people that already live here. So who do you think gets the home and who gets made homeless? 

One of the big failings of government was the failure to introduce legislation to make the statutory legislation apply to all. I assume no-one thought that the amount of immigration would impact the availability of social housing and that there would be plenty of housing supply for all. How Naive.

Removing the vagrancy act removes the pressure on councils to house homeless people. Those homeless people being the people with no statutory rights granted to them regarding housing, i.e. you and me. 

Now, add to the mix the rumour that a government led by Andy Burnham is looking at a land tax, that is taxing you a percentage of the value of your house instead of council tax. While it may make it cheaper for some people, for others it makes it a damn sight more expensive. 

It kills charities like Omaze overnight, because winning a million pound mansion will instantly incur a tax liability higher than the average wage.

At the moment, if you don't pay council tax, you get the bailiffs knocking at the door to take goods. But your home is relatively safe. It would take years to rack up a debt large enough to require the sale of your dwelling to pay off.

What's the chances that any new legislation that introduces the land tax changes the way the government claim the money back for non-payment? What are the chances that the changes the rules to say if the new tax is on your property, rather than payment for services, the remedy for non-payment would be seizure of your property? 

You see where this is going? Yep, more people homeless and less pressure on councils to house them. They're getting ahead of the game.

And don't get me started on how the government can charge a tax on an asset you don't own. If you have a mortgage, the house is not yours until it's paid off. The bank or building society hold the deeds. So technically the owner is the bank. 

I bet if the bank got charged the property tax, you'd get it lumped on your lap with a nice administration fee stuck on top...

This is the WEF plan writ large. The government is now making a move to make land grab, a grab for property, YOUR property. 

Remember the outcome has always been, you will own nothing, forget the bit about you will be happy, they don't care.. Happiness has nothing to do with it. You will become a slave, a cash-cow. You will work for board and food and you will be grateful in the new socialist utopia. No foreign holiday, in fact no travel outside your 15-minute city. That would be a bourgeois idea.

The unproductive will be culled. The government are well on the way to introducing that assisted dying legislation. Once it's in place, it won't take much to make it mandatory for the unproductive in society. 

I've a feeling someone has already done the maths on what happens when A.I. takes 90% of the jobs and what you do with the masses of unemployed. 

And if you don't think that's the way the road is leading, you're worse than an idiot, you are a grade A moron.

The 50-Year Doom Spiral.

It started in the 40s. We were so poor after the war, that we were effectively broke. The good news was that we produced products the world still wanted. Cars, aircraft, ships, etc. We made big, expensive items. 

We manufactured our way out of the debt caused by the war. 

But just as we were doing that, at the same time we were losing our Empire. The Empire had supplied us with revenue, enough to keep us the superpower we had been up until the 40s. 

The loss of Empire meant we had to generate wealth from the UK alone. Sadly, there just wasn't enough real estate to generate that sort of wealth.

The Sixties were the last golden times. We still had all the huge manufacturing facilities that allowed us to manufacture the expensive items we needed to at least keep the country alive.

Although during the Sixties, we had the warning signs. Beeching's railway cuts, Duncan Sandys' Defence white Paper. These were the first trimmings and the first indications that the supply of money could not keep up with expenditure. 

Interestingly, we also disbanded the Civil Defence force in the late sixties. Yet the Cold War was still raging. 

Then the Seventies arrived, and with it a rabidly Socialist Labour party and a wet Tory party. Things got rapidly worse. Four day weeks, strikes, the Unions saw weak government and went for the jugular. 

Money supply went haywire. We can't get money through revenue, so let's just print it. And so inflation went through the roof. 

Heath's wet Tories just made things worse. They were an irrelevance that did untold damage by joining the Common Market, in an attempt to use Europe as a liferaft. Tying that liferaft to Germany's economy would, for a while, keep us afloat. 

Things declined rapidly through the seventies, to the winter of discontent in '78.

Then came Saint Margaret of Thatcher. Well, most on the right would class her as a saint, or a saviour of the country. 

She did turn the country around and things did seemingly improve. As a young adult at the time she came to power, the difference between Maggie's government and Calaghan's preceding Labour government was night and day.

It's hard to encapsulate what Maggie did in the first half of the Eighties to transform the country, but here goes. 

She cut all the dross, the waste, the overspend. She was ruthless in her application of cuts. 

The public sector, the tail that had wagged the dog during the seventies got sharp shrift: there would be no more automatic pay rises. 

Defence spending was already scaled back (leading to the Falklands War) which then required some "adjustment" after the Falklands was won back. 

The money supply, printing of money was curtailed. We call it quantative easing today, but it's still printing money you don't have. It was slowed or in fact stopped under Maggie. 

"The market" became the phrase de jour. The market would, with a little help from government generate the wealth needed to keep the country going. The government relaxed controls to help grease the wheels.

And the market helped, but didn't provide the necessary wealth. Maggie had to resorts to steep cuts in public spending and selling off assets like publicly owned utility companies in order to keep things afloat. Basically public owned companies were firesaled. Just get rid of them to stop any further spending. Whether they swam or sank wasn't an issue for the government.

The era of the "Yuppie" came along in the mid-eighties, as the deregulated stock market became a money-making giant. It made money, but very little of that money trickled down to the poorest in society. 

It still wasn't enough though. Services continued to decline and a way of offsetting that was the Poll Tax: making people pay slightly more for the services provided by local councils. It went down like a lead balloon with the population. 

The poll tax riots ushered in the 1990s. Sadly for Maggie, the smoke and mirrors of her tenure had run out of tricks. 

1990 also ushered in the Grey Man, John Major. 

I've already mentioned John Major on my blog, but safe to say, his tenure was the start of the professional management class and the job-creation scheme that was the NVQ system. 

Financially clueless, under Major we had Black Wednesday as he kept the pound nailed to the ERM for way too long as the Likes of George Soros hammered it and the government threw billions into propping it up. 

The Major premiership felt like freewheeling a bicycle downhill after the furious pedalling of the Thatcher era. 

But at least we did the right thing and successfully freed Kuwait under Major. However, I suspect the success was set up and virtually guaranteed by Thatcher's regime.

Major continued to sell off assets, famously British Rail under his tenure. 

Then came Tony Blair...

Tony the traitor, Tony the War criminal to a not insignificant minority. 

Tony took us into war in the Balkans, took us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony borrowed billions and his policies inflated house prices in order for people to feel richer. 

All the while, the country still declined. He opened the floodgates for Eastern Europeans to come into the UK and provide cheap labour, so people could feel richer. And to rub the noses of the right in diversity, apparently.

Tony also changed the law. Double jeopardy went, so the authorities could keep prosecuting you for the same crime. They could effectively bankrupt you with lawfare. Rather than do it right, he allowed the Police to become sloppy, inefficient and politicised.

He introduced the supreme court. A court that had supremacy over a democratically elected government. Basically killing democracy, because then what's the point of s democratically elected government, if it can't enforce the will of the people?

As I said, Blair took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, decades-long armed forces commitments that cost billions. 

People felt richer for a while. But it wouldn't last. The rate of borrowing couldn't last, the rate of spending couldn't last. We couldn't maintain an armed conflict on two fronts.

The writing was eventually on the wall, so Blair handed over to Brown. 

Gordon Brown, who sold the gold reserves at the bottom of the market. 

Gordon Brown, who bailed out the banks in 2008, with our money. 

Gordon Brown, who thought we were all bigots.

Yeah, a disastrous premiership.

Then we had the Tory/LibDem coalition. 

Oh, my God. Yet more decline, marked by the rise of political correctness, the idea of green policies and basically giving up on any idea of saving the nation.

And this is probably the time of the rise of luxury beliefs, like climate change and Trans ideology. 

And there we stayed for 14 years, under the Tories for the most part.

14 years of increasing immigration and reducing spending. Austerity caused by the Bank Bailout and the repayments required to pay back the sum we borrowed to achieve it, coupled with now accepting the whole world into the UK to offset the hideous GDP figures that we would have seen without it. A disastrous cocktail that was bound to end up in the morass we have now, where people expect a government to at least attempt to fix the country, or make it better.

We're now in the position fewer and fewer taxpayers are being asked to pay a larger and larger share of their earnings to prop up an unsustainable situation going forward.

The thing is, politicians haven't been honest with us for 50 years or more, haven't been able to make it better for 50 years or more. We don't have an Empire that props up the mother country, the EU is as badly in the hole after Germany spent all it's treasure on reunification.

We are in a doom spiral, and have been for 50 years. It was managed well for probably the first 20 years, but the seventies halted that and the Thatcher years only stayed positive thanks to asset-stripping the country.

This is the result of 50 years of managed decline. 

We will eventually hit rock bottom, but I don't think it will be long now. I have visions of the end of this country. It's a civil war, with the country split into various factions: haves, have-nots, Christians, Muslims, 

Those wealthy enough will leave, those that are not will be left to fight over the scraps. 

Victory depends on factors, not least of which would be what external sponsors get involved. For instance if the militant Islamic countries sponsor the Islamic faction in the UK, then without the support of the rest of the West and a determination and stomach to eradicate the Islamic extremists with extreme prejudice, the UK will become an Islamic country.

Nothing of what I've seen of the "Liberal" West fills me with the confidence that the UK will be saved, come the great upheaval. 

Government needs to be honest with people. It needs to let us know what went on in the past, where we are now and from there, with an honest basis, we can build a robust plan for the future.

Otherwise we have more of the same until it all come crashing down into a morass, a pit of chaos, where the country splits into warring factions.

I'm nearly dead, so most likely it won't affect me. Dying a couple of years early? Meh. 

To teh rest of you: Good luck. You'll need it. 

Burnham launches manifesto. Sort of.

A pressure group backing Andy Burnham for the Premiership has launched a document, essential handing out it's wishlist of items for a new PM to address.

Top of the pile is the nationalisation of water and power companies. 

Now the water companies, I'd nationalise in a heartbeat. I'd also make legislation so that they could never be again sold into private hands.

I'd go one further and start criminal investigations into the boards of these companies and make than personally liable for the damage caused to the environment by their actions. Let's claw back some of those bonuses by fining the shit out of them.

The power companies I'm a bit more ambiguous about. They've just maximised profit in the best way they can. By screwing the paying customer, with a side serving of government ideology. 

Sure, a few grannies have died of hypothermia, we have poor baseline energy generation and energy costs are at the very least twice or even three times what they should be because the energy companies and government ideology made it so, but you can't fault the energy companies for just following the ideals of the government.

In true Communist fashion, the group also advocate more caps on more things, because they have no idea of the concept of unintended consequences, or the extra cost to the government of setting up yet another watchdog organisation to oversee (badly) yet another facet of our lives. 

I mean, they could just start building more homes, to bring the cost of rent and purchase down, but oooh no, rent caps are what we need. 

Then once all of these new expensive bodies have been created, keep them off the books somehow, so that they don't show up on the national balance sheet. Or more likely we won't see the massive extra drain on resources they will create.

The thing is with Burnham's policies, is it's a build it now, pay for it later sort of regime, like the new bee network in Manchester is financed in such a way that the pigeons don't come home to roost for a few years. But they do eventually. By which time, Burnham has moved on and someone else is left picking up the pieces. It's forecast that the local authorities in Greater Manchester will have to pay an ever-larger chunk of change to allow the bee network to keep running.

I predict the usual socialist fuck up, by which in 5 years time the bee network faces collapse without a big government bailout. 

And Andy Burnham wants to use this model to national infrastructure.

I mean lets apply it to defence: Imagine all our tanks being franchised and rented from BAE or whatever, the same for our aircraft too. Our ships rented out from Scottish shipyards. All all of the above rented from some huge corporate. 

Assets that could be withdrawn at any minute, especially if there was a threat to the safety of the asset. No more entering war zones or fighting wars. Too dangerous. Those Tanks, planes and ships might get damaged and would affect the bottom line of the leasing company. 

It's nonsensical. 

But when have Socialists ever been sensical?

Starmer Resigns. And Every Line of His Resignation Speech is a Lie.

 Here is the video of his speech, courtesy of Guido Fawkes at order-order.com:

Virtually every sentence is a lie. It's what we've come to expect from Starmer.

Basically the first sentence, stating he was proud to walk into number 10 was the truth. Although I have the feeling he must have thought "Oh Fuck, I've got to deliver now" as he walked to the door of number 10.

The preamble about the party was mostly truthful, until it came to the statement that he'd driven out antisemitism. Really? How many Labour MPs called for the eradication of Israel? From the river to the sea is not an idle chant, is it Kier?

Restoring trust on the economy? You're having a laugh Kier. Rachael from accounts has borrowed almost as much in the last month as the Conservatives did while propping up the economy during Covid lockdowns and furloughs. Except with Labour, that's just "normal" borrowing. Unsustainable borrowing. 

Restoring trust in Defence? Oh, my God. How long his it taken to produce the defence review, that STILL hasn't been completed? How many defence ministers have resigned over the cuts you want to enact on the defence budget? How many times have you lied to the public and to world leaders regarding your commitment to defence?  Nope, I'm not having that one Kier. Flat out lie. 

Restoring trust in National Security? While importing and allowing to settle here undocumented migrants whop have dodgy histories. You've allowed child murderers to settle here. You've allowed killers of women to settle here. You've allowed actual terrorists to settle here. 
That's another big fat lie right there. 

A party that stood with, not against our national flag? Kier lies worse than a cheap Chinese watch. Maybe the Union flag is in the background, left over from teh Tories, but woe betide anyone who is not a Labour supporter putting a national flag up. Off to the Gulag with them.

Now after that sentence, Kier strays into almost truthful territory. He doesn't want power for power's sake, but wants to change Britain for the better. This is not a lie. He wants to impose his ideology, which he thinks will improve the country. It won't. But ideology is always like that. It requires blind faith. 

But then immediately strays from truth: To build a country with dignity and respect. Really? How many of those people he imported has dignity and respect for the country? How many Labour party accolytes have respect for our country and it's history? Very few I suspect, the Labour line on oppression, Empire, and colonialism surely is at odds with Kier's statement.

Where everyone is seen and everyone is valued? Everyone except the majority, who you dismiss and instantly label far-right, eh Kier?

Wealth and opportunity for all? Er, no Kier. You've saddled us with the highest tax burden for a generation and you're also borrowing money at an eye-watering rate, impoverishing our Grandchildren.

Then we get the big lies. The economy rising faster than our peers? Depends who you class as our peers. Europe is an economic dumpster fire thanks to the socialist governments doing their thing. Importing more immigrants to take more welfare, creating a hostile environment for small businesses, imposing ever more red tape and beaurocracy. Yeah, we're doing minimally (like 0.01% of GDP) better than Europe. But we're not better than similar economies in other, less suicidal countries of the world.

Then we get the bit about the changes to workers and renters rights.

Yes, the workers right bill that has forced a downturn in companies wanting to employ people.

The renter's rights bill that has made renters homeless or forced them into the clutches of industrial scale corporate landlords, with massive increases in evictions before the imposition of the law or rent increases.

By now I'd lost interest. Others can dive deeper into his speech, but by now it was clearly just ideological hogwash.

Starmer is a hurt man. The country rejected him. He had a thumping majority, he says, and a mandate to change the country. Except he didn't. 

He had a majority in the Commons because the Tory voters abstained. It was handed to him rather than won.

He then decided to make himself a liar. All the promises made before the election? Gone.

Instead we had Digital ID, online safety (that requires digital ID), supposedly for the kids. But the only way to prove you're not a child is to surrender your ID online. 

We had a government headed by an ex-lawyer that seemingly didn't know how the law works. Didn't know that you can't sue an American company in America with no presence in the UK for something that they failed to comply with in the UK. 

We basically had new, made-up legislation created to make the government look like it was doing something, rather than being the lazy, feckless bums they really are. 

I very much doubt that Burnham or whoever take the poisoned chalice of Labour leadership will make serious changes. They are ideologically captured. You could see that with Starmer's speech. 

I Called It: Burham Wins.

 I've been saying for weeks that Burham will win. Mainly because Labour voters would vote for a pig wearing a Red Rosette

Despite being used by a party apparatus that despises them, they would still vote Labour.

And so it came to pass last night.

At least the Westminster soap opera will play out for a few months. 

However, if it turns on Starmer, I've a feeling he's the vindictive type that will go all scorched earth.

Maybe not to the point of calling a general election before Burnham can take control, although I wouldn't put it past Starner: "I won an election Andy, let's see you win one. Do it the hard way, like I did".

I don't think Starmer will go quietly. He'll slip something in somewhere to bugger up Burnham's Premiership. There'll be something in the latest legislation that he'll get a Starmer loyalist to slip in, or a change in party procedure that will hamstring Burnham. 

I just get the feeling that Starmer is that type of a Cunt.

A Nation of Children Acting as Parents.

Let's discuss the Government's latest announcement that they're going to ban kids from Social Media.

Now, I'm not going to go into the details of the millions of ways kids could circumvent any ban. Let's just say, they will be able to do it. The ban is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Let's look at the reasons for the ban. Weak Liberal parents. 

Because they can't do anything with their kids to get them off Social Media and they can't stop other parent's kids getting on social media, they want the government to ban kids off social media so they can say "The Government" made me do it". 

They haven't got the backbone to lay the law down to their own kids and enforce rules. Although I thought in Liberal Land, rules are oppression...

Anyway, the child parent has asked it's parent, the government to lay down the law to it's own children, because it can't do the job itself.

That's how you sleepwalk into tyranny folks, you want the government to be your parent, enforce the rules, make new rules up. Until the rules tell you the child parent you can't do something. And then it's too late.

Spineless Liberal fucktards. 

Are We at War With Russia?

Because last time I looked I thought we weren't.

Ukraine is definitely at war with Russia and we are "helping" by sending tanks, and equipment to help them fight teh war.

But I thought we weren't involved directly.

Until yesterday that is, when we seized a Russian tanker. Okay, it's on of Russia's "dark" fleet, but still, it's ultimately owned by Russia.

In what some would call an act of war, if not piracy. 

What gives the UK the power to seize a tanker owned by another country? I seem to remember Somali pirates getting the tail end of some hot lead for doing exactly the same.

Please can someone explain the difference to me?

Irish Government to Blame for Riots.

The Northern Irish Assembly, the government over there are blaming thugs for the violence that has erupted after the almost beheading earlier this week.

Sorry? You said what?

Northern Ireland is a classic example of how civil unrest leads to politically directed violence, which then wins political legitimacy when the costs get too high for the government to absorb.

Let's look back at the euphemistically named "troubles" in Northern Ireland.

Back in the sixties, we had riots and protests from Republicans against rule from England. We also had riots and protests from Unionists against the protests against rule from England.

It was a sectarian mess of violence between religious groups. The Army were called in to quell the riots and we got bloody Sunday, the IRA attacks and all of the rest of the "troubles" through the seventies.

The culmination being bomb attacks on the mainland of the UK. The Canary Wharf/City of London bombs finally caused the government to enter talks, because the cost of underwriting the damage caused to buildings and to the economy through loss of trading was too much to bear.

So Northern Ireland has a history of causing a bit of trouble to eventually get what they want.

Now it's Republican and Unionist united against the globalists. They went to an effective civil war in order to try and preserve their cultures and eventually came to a peaceful accommodation in the Good Friday agreement, but now their culture is under threat again, from politicians aligned with the globalist agenda. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, Sinn Fein sound exactly like every other globalist politician in the Western World. Open borders, immigration are good, shut up and put up with the beheadings, you racists!

The people of Northern Ireland won't put up with that. They went to war for their culture and you think they'll just take this new threat lying down? It's less than 30 years since the Good Friday agreement, the violence of the troubles is still within living memory of relatively young people. The history of the troubles will have been passed down to even younger generations. 

It's still raw, it's still a living memory. And you think some pissant politicians with fat paychecks and no idea can quell the sense of injustice and threat that the Norther Irish people feel?

Think again.

You fail to listen to the people of Northern Ireland at your peril. They know where the guns and explosives are buried. 

Ireland, You're Blaming the Wrong People.

The overnight upheaval after the knife attack in Belfast yesterday targetted immigrants.

They are not the architects of the problem, they are just pawns. 

The architects are the state and successive governments. If anything direct your anger towards agents of the state, those protecting the state and thereby enabling the status quo. 

Direct your anger towards them, not towards innocent people who have arrived here from god knows where.

Direct you anger towards the people that keep allowing unvetted illegal immigrants into the country.

Direct your anger towards the people that see the almost daily stabbings and still leave the borders open.

Direct your anger towards the people that do not deport illegal immigrants immediately.

Direct your anger towards the people that do not remove illegal immigrants from the country.

Direct your anger towards the Police.

Direct your anger towards the Judges.

Direct your anger towards the Politicians, both local and national.

Direct your anger towards the Civil Service.

Direct your anger towards the ballot box and refuse to vote for the same people. Vote for someone, anyone but those in charge at the moment. 

Focus your anger. Do not waste it. Use it wisely. And when it comes, make it count. Vote for a valid alternative that will make a proper change to politics, the judiciary, the Civil Service, the Police, . 

What Unites the Political Elites?

It can only be corruption. Or can it?

We've just had the almost decapitation of a Northern Irish man in Belfast. 

Yet Sinn Fein, sworn enemies of the English spout the same empty-headed rhetoric. 

Now when a Sinn Fein minister spouts the same policy as an English Conservative, or an English Liberal, or a Politician from South of the Irish Border, or a Liberal in France, or a Christian Democrat in Germany, you can't help but wonder what is going on?

The only European enclaves free of the mind-virus are Poland and Hungary.

But what, or who has assimilated all these politicians?

Who, in it's crudest form has bought them?

Who has the financial power to buy the politicians of a continent? Who has the power to control the media, influence focus groups and create the narrative for the puppet politicians to follow?

And they are puppets. Kier Starmer is desperate to blame someone else for his failures. If it's not 14 years of Tory rule, it's the public, the made up "far right" rightly protesting against abhorrent Police procedures and the actions of imported men from areas of the globe where low morals are de rigeur. 

Starmer, so desperate to offload the burden of leadership, he's trying to tie us to Europe once again, so the politicians of the continent can tell him what to do. So if it goes wrong again, he can absolve himself of blame. 

But, with all these singular voices across Europe and even further across the Western World: Canada, Australia, and liberal States of America. 

Who has the wealth to buy power and influence across the globe? 

Is it wealth? Does one person or group control enough money to buy a whole civilisation?

Or is it fear? Is the puppet master so fearsome, the puppets play the tune to the point of eradicating their own countries and cultures?

If it is fear, where is it projected from?

Does someone have nukes? Or worse weapons? 

Is the threat terrestrial, or as some opine, extraterrestrial?

No matter how far fetched, there must be a reason that politicians in lock-step say the same words, erode the same freedoms, take us ever closer to world government.....

The simple question is... Why?

Andy Burnham: What if He Wins?

First off, I hope that Labour get a bloody nose in the Makerfield bye election and Andy Burnham doesn't get in and Labour don't have the rebranding that the gullible may fall for.

But let's do the thought process: what if Burnham got in. What might he do to improve Labour's chances of winning against Reform or Restore at the next election?

 What would Burnham's policies be as PM?

One of the likely pushes of a Burnham government would be to Nationalise public transport. The success of Bee line in Manchester has already gained public support in that city. However, no on notes the cost of conversion from Private to Public ownership. Yes, the busses and trams might work a bit better and having a single transport entity makes moving from buses to trams seamless, but does the cost outweigh the benefit? Only time will tell. Of course users on see the benefits, especially if the service is subsidised with borrowed money. Like most socialist projects, it may all collapse in 5 years as borrowing costs rise beyond the ability to fund repayment from fares.

If the Bee line experiment is pushed to become a Nationwide experiment, let's hope there's enough good will in the markets to allow the borrowing to fund the enterprise. Also the large investment funds may get a bit upset at losing the profits from road and rail transport companies.

The second most likely nationalisation in Burnham's public-ownership-focussed brain would be the utility companies, especially the water companies. And it would be supported by the public. But...

The problem he has there is convincing the public to fund repair of the infrastructure caused by decades of lackluster investment by private owners. Why should the public pay? And if the public pays, how are they compensated by the companies that profited from the hideous profiteering by the owners of the utility companies whilst in their ownership?

Those are just two of the problems that Burnham could face if he tries the "Manchester Mayor" his term as PM. 

Notwithstanding the issues he faces from the declining revenue from tax, increased borrowing (and the pressure to borrow even more to fund re-nationalisation), increasing inequality, increasing social and cultural division, etc.

Whether Burham can see past the leftist ideology and identify the true causes of those issues, is another thing. Starmer is captured by ideology. I get the impression Burnham is (currently) a bit more free-flowing, but if he becomes PM would the party, the blob and donors constrain him? 

Hopefully it never comes to that and Burham loses the bye-election. 

Then we'll see Starmer revert to type and his true authoritarian nature will come out. I'm sure there will be a reshuffle like you've not seen before, with ever more obscure and ineffectual personalities put in positions of power, so as not to threaten Starner's premiership. Whether he gets to eradicate all his opponents from the cabinet remains to be seen.

But Starmer is like the step-dad from hell. He is determined to make you a better person (according to him) by force if necessary, up to the point of abuse. Let's just hope we can survive the next 3 years unscathed and whoever gets in can reverse the last 30 years of abusive government.

The Most Subtle "Fuck You" in Recent History.

Pork Sausages were served on a deportation flight leaving Ireland heading to Pakistan. 

The Irish really know how to say fuck you and don't come back in the nicest way possible. 

I'm Back.

You probably haven't noticed, but I am now back in the UK, after a bit of a break. 

Well, what a few weeks the UK has had. Starmer has been given a bloody nose in the local elections and refuses to accept the reality that the people reject his policies.

A bloody nose that was so predictable, Starmer tried to stop it by withholding local elections for swathes of the UK. It was only down to Reform taking the government to court that we were allowed to have the elections, a year later than originally planned.

Since that arsekicking last week, the Government have carried on with their unpopular policies. 

We had the Kings speech. Digital ID is still going ahead at huge expense, but it's not mandatory, except that you won't be able to do anything without it, so it will become defacto mandatory to have in order to drive a car, get benefits, etc. Also in the Kings speech is the scrapping of Jury trials. Hugely unpopular. 

Basically the message of the King's speech is less freedom, more government intervention and more money required in taxes to fund it all.

Then we had Starmer's speeches. The one regarding the loss of council seats in the local elections, and the one at the end of last week regarding the protests in London. 

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Labour MP Barry Gardiner, but Starmer is deaf. Deaf to the clamouring from the people for him to reverse course on pretty much all of his policies. 

Deaf to the fact the the Unite the Kingdom movement is not Far-Right, or anti-immigration, or racist. There were plenty of immigrants at the march, who love the UK and want it to stay the way it is. 

As opposed to the Pro-Palestinian march, that was again calling for the eradication of the Jewish state and by definition, the eradication of Jews. 

Anyone looking at Starmer doesn't see a leader. They see a puppet. A puppet controlled from somewhere else. He is not listening to the people. He is not dealing with their grievances ion the way a true leader would, instead he continues with policies the public didn't ask for. So who asked for them? 

That's the biggest question now of Starmer: who is pulling his strings, or the strings of the Labour party? 

Coming up, we have the bye election created specially to get Andy Burnham into Parliament. 

Let that sink in: a Labour MP, elected by his constituency to represent his constituents, has basically stuck two fingers up to them and said, "You MUST to elect Andy Burnham". Not because it benefits the voters in Makerfield, but because it benefits the Labour party. That's not democracy. 

That's the Lords and Nobles of the land telling the peasants to fall into line and elect the person they are being told to elect. 

That's almost the modern equivalent of the Rotten boroughs, expecting the voters to vote for you. Good luck with that. Anti-Labour sentiment is high, and I guess in a constituency that voted 65% for leaving the EU, it's a bit presumptuous to just expect Labour voters to cast their vote for a Remainer. 

Prevent ain't Preventing

So, the perpetrator of the latest violent act against the Jewish community (finally recognised as a terror attack), was yet another person referred to prevent. 

How many times do we have to hear the phrase "known to the authorities" or "Referred to Prevent".

Prevent, as an organisation is supposed to de-radicalise the people referred to it. Now, I'm not sure how many have been successfully de-radicalised, but it seems there are a great many failures of the prevent strategy.

I just have to ask, what happens to prevent's failures? Are they just left to enter society and be ticking time bombs? 

I would like someone to be asking teh question, because it seems quite clear there is a whole raft of radicalised people out in the community that pose a risk to that community. 

There must be a further step for anyone that is referred to prevent and who fails to be de-radicalised. What that step is for the authorities to decide, because it's only them who have the power to remove the liberty of people. Because is that the next step incarceration? It seems it should be, given the risk these people pose. 

Oh Mandy,

The Mandleson affair continues to fester, giving more drama than a week of Eastenders episodes. 

It's quite clear that he's lost the confidence of not only opposition MPs, but MPs on his own benches. 

It's become so bad that four MPs were ejected from the commons by the speaker for openly calling Starmer a liar.

The L-word is verboten in Parliament, you can call an MP "economical with the truth", "misleading", but never, ever call them a liar.

The Parliamentary Circus convenes for a debate on the Mandelson affair today.

Olly Robbins already dropped bombshells in a meeting with the Foreign Office Select committee this morning. Letting slip that Starmer was pushing for another one of his chums to get a cushy job in the Foreign Office. But just don't tell David Lammy the Froreign Secretary about it...

Hmm. Quite the duplicitous schemer, our Kier.

Anyway, I'm sure the MPs in teh commons today will have popcorn at the ready, to enjoy the show.

It's Nice to be Proven Right (2).

Yesterday it was reported by the BBC that asylum seekers were falsely claiming to be gay in order to strengthen their claim, because they said they would be persecuted back home.

Yep, been saying that for years. Claimants are playing the system, just like they play the benefits system and get help from so-called interpreters (who are basically advocates). 

Now, today it's reported asylum seekers are falsely claiming domestic violence in order to strengthen their asylum claim as well. 

Not only the two cases above, but the BBC have reported there's a whole raft of abuses of the system, including falsely claiming you're an atheist or have converted to Christianity.

Yep, been saying that immigrants have been lying on applications for years. 

Look, I've seen it first hand. 

Waaaaay back in 1980 I was made redundant and had to claim dole money. One of the things I immediately noticed was the Asian lady next to me had an interpreter with her. From the jist of the conversation I was overhearing, the interpreter was doing all the heavy lifting regarding the lady's claim. My first ever glimpse into the industry that supports immigrants and runs rings round the systems we have in place. That was 46 years ago. 

Just imagine how sophisticated and entrenched the system of cheating and gaming the system is now, after 50 years of not being investigated and stopped.

In my booth, I was getting short shrift. No help, no top-ups, not entitled to anything extra. Such was the icy reception, I rather facetiously asked, "can I have an interpreter", because I pointed up that the interpreter next door knew the system better than I and I would like an advocate to tell me what I could and couldn't claim for, rather than the icy reception and the "It's not my job to tell you what you're entitled to" response to my questions from the lady opposite.

I got the job centre death stare for pointing this out.

So, it doesn't surprise me in the least, that immigrants are gaming the system and people are helping them to do it. It's been going on for decades. They are gaming the system because it can be gamed. The people running the system are gullible enough to allow advocates into the system, rather than keep it the same for everyone. 

If solicitors are advising client to lie on their asylum claims, they should be struck off. End of. 

If those advising the claimants are interpreters, the answer is simple: no more interpreters. 

It's not racism, it's not hate against the asylum seekers, it's closing loopholes they are using to game the system and making it a level and truthful playing field for all. Where there is genuine need, then we should help. But our hospitality has been abused for over half a century.

But it's nice that finally the BBC of all people is now asking to close off these false claim loopholes.

It's nice to be Proven right

Back in 2019 I posted the following post on why I would never vote Labour. Even back then.

The reasons why not have become predictions. I was spot in the money.

Raises in tax for the low-paid, raises in National Insurance, pressure on employers such that  unemployment has increased under the current government, virtue signalling, open borders, it's all there. 

Back then, it was entirely predictable.

Thursday, 7 November 2019

Why as a Low-Paid Working Class Male I will not vote for the Labour Party.

First off, let me state I'm low Paid. Under 20 grand, which puts me way under the average wage. I'm not on minimum wage (although if the Conservative pledge to bump it up to £10.50 an hour happens, I may well be).

So, I'm working class, low paid. Yet I will not vote for the Labour Party, the traditional home of the low paid working class.

If there is anyone out there reading this that wants to attempt to convince me that voting Labour would benefit me, please do put it in a comment. I'd love the debate.

The reasons are many, but the overall reason is that the Labour Party and it's policies do not represent me. It does not champion the working class. It does not fight for us.

Instead it concentrates on platitudes and virtue signalling.

"More money to the NHS"... which means more taxation of my already meagre wages.

"Better Welfare"... which means even more taxation of my already meagre wages to pay benefits.

"Employers and the Rich should pay more tax"... which means there's a high likelihood that thanks to the already huge pressures on retail companies thanks to increased rates, higher employer N.I. or higher business rates or corporation tax will tip retail companies over the edge into closure. I high chance then that I'll end up jobless and on benefits then.

"Open Borders and Free Movement".... which means more competition for jobs, especially low-paid jobs. Which means there's a higher risk of me and other people like me staying on benefits.

"Free NHS treatment for non-UK nationals"... means that the NHS will not be able to cope as it tries to treat the world's sick and ill. The clamour to pay even more tax money to the NHS will increase and taxation of even low wages like mine will increase. The alternative is to borrow more now and then get the kids and grandkids to pay off the debt.

We had that with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, that cynically borrowed massively to fund their supposed boom. The tax credits system or Tony Blair job creation scheme as I call it. The scheme that rather than reduce taxes at source, set up a huge administration to take a portion of tax to give back to working families and also pay the wages of the new administrators set up to administer it. So wasteful and so cynical as it allows companies to pay even lower wages to families while relying on taxpayers to make up the shortfall. Genius!

As it stands, I cannot see how the Labour party's policies would benefit me. Conversely, all I see is more negativity in my future if Labour get into power.

Nope, I will not vote for Labour.

The Real Reason Trump has Blockaded Iranian Ports.

Ok, bear with me. This will take some explaining. 

The media is pecking away at the shallow assessment of the Trump actions with Iran. Basically they are saying he is blockading ports in retaliation at Iran charging a toll for ships to pass though the straight of Hormuz. 

And looked in isolation, that's exactly what it would look like. 

However, if you look globally, things start to piece together. One of Iran's biggest customers for oil is China. China takes over 80% of Iranian oil exports and has been building up war reserves of fuel for a couple of years now. 

Intelligence assessments put a date for China maxing it's reserves and therefore it's capability to invade Taiwan at either late 2026 or some time in 2027. It's reserves of war fuels like diesel were working up to such a high level just prior to that. 

Trump could be blockading Iran with the cover that he is dealing with Iran, but simultaneously he is dealing with the problem of China and Taiwan. With no oil from Iran, China will be forced to use it's reserves to supply it's everyday requirements. It will have to draw down on those war reserves, making an invasion of Taiwan less likely.

Yes, the lack of supply from Iran could force China to jump now and use what reserves it has now to instigate the invasion of Taiwan. But China will be hamstrung, because it won't be able to import more oil to refine and use during the invasion. All it would have are it's reserves and what's in the ships already loaded and bound for China. 

And those ships crossing the Indian Ocean from the Gulf are very vulnerable, just like the Iranian warship that was sunk by an American sub. 25 miles off the coast of Sri Lanka. Did you miss that was a message of intent to China as well? 

The danger with Trump's strategy is that China could just lash out now, but how long could it last? Would it escalate to nukes, or an attack on Diego Garcia? Is this a repeat of Pearl Harbour? Could they, would they supply nukes to Iran to allow them to defend themselves? Not without America knowing. 

Who knows. If the Trump administration plays it smart, it can involve China in talks with the Iranians, to persuade them to negotiate in good faith with the Americans. But being Islamists, in my experience good faith is not something they ever negotiate with

Time will tell if this is a huge bit of 4D chess by the Trump administration, or if it's the precursor to World War 3. Lets hope they know how to play chess eh?

Europe is an Organised Crime Continent.

I work for a company that imports and exports items all over the world. Since Brexit, it has become very clear that the EU customs process is a very protectionist one, or one that requires a huge investment on the part of the company importing into Europe to comply with all the petty rules. 

For instance when Brexit first started, we had terrible trouble getting items through customs because the address the person used on their order, their "informal" address, didn't exactly match the "formal" address EU customs had on file for that location. 

Many order were rejected and returned until customers inside the EU learned to look up their formal address and use it as the destination. 

But even then, it became so petty: for instance if a comma was missing, or in the wrong place, it was rejected and returned. 

Even up until a couple of months ago, Ireland was especially petty. An order would be arbitrarily returned for no reason, then if resent, would be accepted. It seemed to be just up to the mood of the individual customs officer that looked at the package. That issue seems to have largely been sorted by an addition to the invoice.

Spain was another egregious rejector of packages. Packages were rejected for being illegal to import into Europe, or restricted, or some similar reason. On items that were originally made in Europe and exported to us in the UK. 

I do remember one item being a solid metal gear knob. I'm not sure what they thought it was, considering it was manufactured in Poland, delivered to a company in Germany who then sold it to us in the UK and we then exported it to a customer in Spain. Maybe they thought it was a weapon?

What I'm getting at is the whole process of selling into the EU from outside is a lottery. Brexit has opened my eyes up to the arbitrary nature of EU officialdom and processes. 

There is no "official" process that can be followed which will guarantee the process flows correctly. There is always the upstart officer in customs or an official department policy that wants to penalise UK companies for exiting the EU. 

That's the way it looks, because the process is so arbitrary. If there was an official process that could be followed that guaranteed entry, then it would look less vindictive and less like criminal activity and more like a professional organisation.

But no. We have to join a club, pay dues sign up to agreements, in order to guarantee trade. The alternative is to fall foul of a complex, unregulated, unprofessional system. 

To me it just looks like more organised crime. Do we slip Euros in the document wallet to grease the palms of the customs officer to guarantee importation? 

It does make you wonder.

Spying.

Fuck. Are we doing this? Again? Reeeeaaally?

I assume for comments.

Just ask. It's that simple.

I am approachable. 

Sloppy, so I assume UK-based?

Kanye West: More Two-Tier Justice from Kiers Cabinet.

Yesterday, Shabbbbana MacMooud, the Home Secretary banned Kanye West from entering teh UK to perform at a festival. 

The reason he was banned are comments he made a couple of years ago supporting Hitler. 

Far enough, you'd think, supporting Hitler is a pretty bad position to be in, ideologically. You know, hating Jews and stuff.

But then why aren't other Jew-hating bands banned from performing in the UK? For instance Kneecap.

Why aren't the crowds on the weekly anti-Israel marches also prosecuted for calling for death to Jes?

By then why aren't extremist Imams that spout anti Israel and anti-Jew rhetoric in Mosques banned? 

If one form of antisemitism is bad, then why not another? All are equally as abhorrent as the others. 

More two-tier justice from the Government I guess. 

The End of the Economy?

We've had skirmishes in the Middle East before and the Strait of Hormuz has been threatened by Iran before. 

So why are things so dire right now and looking into the future?

It's because European governments have abrogated their responsibilities to their citizens with respect to security.

They have reduced their armed forces to a point where they are pointless, they have followed a net zero ideology and made energy supply insecure. 

The UK has shut down all it's refineries, so we have to import petrol and diesel from abroad. We import LNG when we could get it from the north sea. We import electricity because we don't have the capacity to make enough ourselves. 

This is Trump's way of proving a point. You want petrol, go get it, secure it's shipment with your navy. Can't do that because you don't have the ships? Tough. Trump warned Europe, and now after the verbal warning, he's supplying a practical demonstration. 

He's treating European governments like the shallow-thinking children they are.

UK Government Policy Causing Energy Insecurity.

The government have the ideology or rhetoric that renewables are the answer to fuel insecurity. The idea being that if we can generate all our energy from wind and solar, we won't be beholden to the world energy market.

But that's not true is it?

For every single watt of renewable energy capacity that is created, so an identical watt of fossil fueled generation has to be installed as well. That's because every watt of renewable energy has to have a reliable back-up for when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. 

Energy demand doesn't suddenly stop when the renewables can't deliver. There has to be something else available top fill the void, otherwise the lights go out and people freeze to death in winter.

That back-up generation is now predominantly gas-powered. That's why renewable energy is linked to the spot price for gas. 

Because essentially the system is gas-powered and we pay the gas-powered price for the energy, from which the energy providers make a profit. However, if the conditions are right, we switch to renewables.

Now, if we are gas-powered, you'd think the government, in order to stabilise the price of energy would look to bring the production of gas into the country's borders, reducing the reliance on foreign supplied gas. 

But no, the UK government is shutting down gas production from the UK-owned  gas and oil fields, and instead we are taking gas from the Norwegian-owned North Sea gas and oil fields. Let me state that again. We are paying the Norwegians money for oil and gas we could be extracting ourselves. 

It's most likely actually the same oil and gas we could be extracting, because we do have shared gas fields with the Norwegians. So they are extracting our gas for us and charging us for the privilege. 

So no matter what the Government say about renewables, not matter how much of our energy is generated by renewables, in contrast to what the government say, we will still be hostage to world gas spot prices. 

To get away from world spot price, we need reliable non-gas powered baseload. Nuclear would be a good basis for baseload. But the UK decimated the home-grown nuclear industry so much that we have to buy in nuclear power plants from abroad. 

Part of our mix of energy is biomass, which is chipped trees transported by ship to the UK and then shipped to inland power stations. Yeah, that's surely more economical than coal sourced in the UK. 

It just makes you think whoever is making UK energy policy is insane. These are insane policies, they do not make sense. They do not make sense even in terms of net zero. They only make sense in terms of destruction of UK energy security and the destruction of heavy industry. Heavy industry that creates the weapons to keep us safe. 

Madness, utter insanity.

UK in the Firing Line?

Over the Weekend, Iran targeted the US air base at Diego Garcia with ballistic missiles. 

They fired two successfully, one broke up on re-entry into teh atmosphere, but one did make it to the island and was intercepted by anti-missile batteries on DG.

Now, it's unclear how Iran did what it did. Whether this is some new technology they have developed and are using experimentally, or if they are using something already available but in a new way, like an orbital rocket used as a ballistic missile.

However, what is clear, is that Iran has the capability, should it develop it, to strike within a 3-4000 mile radius. 

That brings Europe into it's range, as well as the South of the UK. 

It was bed enough when Russia was a threat, but now the death-cult in charge of Iran has the ability to target large swathes of Europe, this should signal to European leaders to get off teh fence and deal with the Iranian leadership once and for all. 

This is not a question of colonialism, this is a question of eliminating a regime that would quite easily rain nuclear bombs down on the infidels in Europe. It would also quite happily rain down dirty bombs - nuclear material that would make areas of the country uninhabitable, creating our very own Chernobyl.

It's quite clear the nutters in charge of Iran need to be eliminated, and in quick order. And any new nutters that spring up need to also be eliminated, and the next batch and the next batch, until there are no nutters in charge and we get the regime in charge we desire. 

How Do I Know The Shit I Know?

I wish I could tell you. I suppose I have good memory recall. 

For instance I just watched a video mentioning 77th Brigade. (Hi chaps1). 

From the mists of my memory I remembered one of the senior guys was a chap called Chris.

So I did a Grok search as to who are the members of 77th Brigade:

The public information is:

Brigadier Alastair Aitken (initial commander around formation in 2015).

Brigadier Chris Bell (commander from around 2017).

Gordon MacMillan (reported in 2019 as a reservist lieutenant in the brigade; at the time, a Twitter executive—now former).

Mark Lancaster (former MP; reported as deputy commander in some sources).

Alex Aiken (promoted in Army Reserve to Honorary Colonel role related to the brigade's media/comms group in 2019).

Historical predecessor unit figures (pre-2015 formation from merged groups like Media Operations Group, 15 Psychological Operations Group) include names like Captain Lisa Irwin, Captain Lorna Ward, Major Paul Smyth, Lieutenant Colonel Vickie Sherieff, Commander Steve Tatham, Stephen Jolly, and Colonel Colin Mason—but these are not current 77th Brigade specifics.

So how did I know, from memory, that a guy called Chris was running the show? Where did I hear that? I must've heard it somewhere? I doubt very much that he is currently in charge now. The name that I recall is now Timothy. Who? No idea. 

There are many such instances of me just "remembering" information, 

It's almost as if I lead a completely separate past life and every now and again it bubbles to the surface. 

Is this the point I do a sly <wink> to camera? 

Was The Satanic Panic Nonsense?

The more that gets released about the perverted and evil things being done by the elites, the more it seems that the Satanic Abuse conspiracies of the 80s and 90s were actually true.

I mean, what better way to hide actual pedophillia than to dress it up as some satanic ritual, so the kids, if they were able to notify the authorities would not be believed.

The same for the stories around the time of Saville, of kids being driven in expensive cars to large country homes, to be abused by senior government figures.

One gets the impression that they are not so far fetched. Especially as Lord Mandleson has been caught in the Epstein morass. I just wonder how many other Lords have been involved in these various pedophile rings 

It's pretty clear now that there's an overwhelming amount of credible evidence that the great and the good are none of the sort. They are a risible bunch of sexual predators that need taking down a peg or two.

They need reminding they are not above the law. 

And don't get me started on the links between the elite child sex rings and the Pakistani rape gangs. Again, there is credible evidence the two are linked, which is why the great and the good won't investigate. Because Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and pedos don't vote for an inquiry into pedos. 

Prove me wrong.

Lets have a full investigation with statutory powers that has no terms of reference and is able to poke into every rabbit hole it finds. 

The top of the greasy pole is a cesspit of sexual depravity. The cliche of an MP visiting a Madam, or a Dominatrix for a bit of sexual action is quite tame and innocent in comparison to the reality of what went on.

These people are the worst of humanity.

Finally, Dragon Has Sailed.

HMS Dragon has finally left Portsmouth, a week after receiving orders to prepare to go to sea.

Two full days on the ammunition pontoon suggests she is taking a full load-out with her. She is apparently expecting action. 

I'm glad the Captain and the Admirals in charge are taking no chances, but it does give an indication of what paper tigers we have for Warships under normal circumstances. Warships with no weapons are not warships. They are just training barges. 

The government's whole attitude to defence needs a complete bloody shakeup. These are weapons of war, not gin palaces. They are not floating exhibition centres either.

The MOD needs to give it's head a wobble and start being the Ministry of DEFENCE. At the very least, it should be able to defend this country from any and all threats external. 

As a side task, it should also be ready to defend the public from larger internal threats that the Police cannot control.

3-5 years. I give them 3-5 years before they will be called on.

I Called it: MODs Lack of Air Defences in Clear View.

Well, the Iranian attack on Akrotiri Airbase has shown, in clear view, the lack of Air Defences at UK airbases.

I predicted this last year: Delphius' Debate: British Military Wargamers Panic About Lack of Anti-Air Assets in the UK.

I also predicted that the only option we would have would to be deploy Type 45 Destroyers in the path of any incoming air threat, because that's the only assets we have capable of air defence. We have no land-based air defence assets capable of taking out drones.

Today HMS Dragon, a type 45 Destroyer, leaves Portsmouth headed for Cyprus. A multi-billion pound asset, designed to defend a carrier fleet, sent to defend an island against drones that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. 

A single Sea Ceptor missile costs around two million pounds. 

This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 

The MOD really needs to get on the case procuring a cheap, reliable air defence system capable of defending against drones. 

Ideally a layered system, with small, cheap guided missiles providing longer range defence, then for close in work, we can have laser weapons mounted on mobile units (so they are not set in fixed, attackable positions) that can be moved around an airfield. 

There are already systems available that can intercept ballistic missiles. Luckily the UK is too far away from Iran to be concerned with those (although it's not beyond the Iranians to develop the facility to launch missiles (say) from a beached ship).

But again, it would be prudent to look at procuring an air defence system capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, because we will require a defence against them eventually. 

And the 6 type 45 destroyers we have won't protect the UK indefinitely. They can't defend two carriers at sea and the UK as well, all at the same time. 

The UK and it's military bases at home and abroad are inadequately defended. It's time that changed in response to the increased threat from cheap drone-type threats.