Reform Shenanigans: I Called it Months Ago.

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

Basically I said he'd been nobbled. 

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed in Wikipedia here.

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 And if the Gulf states so desired, it could be withdrawn in an instant. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same has happened with Reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Monarchy is No Longer Relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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