As you’ll know, our PM, (in his own mind) possibly the greatest international statesman Britain has ever produced, has just been over to China to grovel to Xi PingPong. Some newspaper headlines have suggested our ‘Sir’ Keir is “kowtowing to the Chinese”.
This is amusingly appropriate. The word “kowtow” actually originates from the Cantonese kau-tau (Mandarin kòutóu), meaning “knock the head,” which refers to a traditional Chinese custom of kneeling and bowing low enough to touch one’s forehead to the ground. It entered English in the early 19th century (circa 1804) to describe this act of extreme submission, worship, or respect, often performed before the Chinese emperor. It was a ritual required in the Qing Empire 1644-1911 to show deference.
Whenever I see Starmer, I feel sick at his blatant, UK-hating, WEF-adoring, UN-worshipping contempt for the British. But one thing he said during his recent China trip made me particularly feel like vomiting. Starmer said something like: “I will always act in the national interest“.
Hmm. Let’s check that. Were these in the national interest?
paying £35 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to China-friendly Mauritius to take over some British territory – the Chagos Islands
helping one of his lawyer chums – since struck off for fraud and other crimes – to pursue British service personnel through the courts based on false allegations of ‘war crimes’ decades after their deployment
alienating our ally, America, in order to cosy up to the Chinese Communist Party
allowing China to build a massive spying centre right in the middle of London
paying lawyers to argue that the rights of illegal migrants superseded the rights of taxpaying British citizens
giving millions in legal aid (paid for by British raxpayers) to often uneducated, often illiterate, often unemployable, often misogynist illegal migrants (who could afford to pay thousands to people smugglers to come to Britain) to help them stay in Britain where they can live off benefits for the rest of their lives while some of them entertain themselves by sexually assaulting often under-age White girls
keep blocking an inquiry into mainly Pakistani rape gangs in order to keep the Muslim vote
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Why is Starmer so loathed? I think it may be because, even those who don’t follow politics, sense that he just lies and lies and lies and lies:
promised Labour would the party of growth, then crushed business with £40 billion of extra taxes in his first budget and another £20 billion in the second budget
promised to tackle the ‘cost of living’ crisis while actually pushing up prices companies charged because they were burdened by Starmer’s extra taxes
promised to reward work while throwing taxpayers’ money at an ever-increasing army of useless public-sector bureaucrats, at an even faster-increasing army of skivers and layabouts with ‘mental health problems’ and on the importation of 45,000 illegal migrants, almost all of whom will stay in Britain and become Labour voters
promised to cut the cost of energy, while actually allowing mad Ed Miliband to wreck our energy supply giving us the highest energy prices in the developed world
Here’s what some people, who are much more creative than me, think of our current PM:
I’ve just finished reading ‘Catastrophe: Europe goes to war 1914‘ by Max Hastings. One of the issues that struck me was that leading politicians in several of the countries which went to war were actually quite keen of starting a war. Each country had its own objectives and leaders of several countries felt that a short sharp war with a quick victory would inject energy and spirit into their populations who had become idle and dissolute following years of peace. And, of course, many politicians were keen to leave their mark on history. What better way to do that than through a military victory?
Unfortunately for tens of millions who would die or be maimed in WWI, European politicians didn’t learn the lesson from the American Civil War (1861-1865) in which over 650,000 soldiers were killed. The main lesson was that war was no longer a matter of brilliant Napoleonic outmanoevring the enemy and heroic cavalry charges. Instead war was turning into industrialised slaughter. And as the Italian diplomat and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli warned “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please“.
Hold on, you may be thinking, what’s that got to do with the price of bread?
Now fast-forward to the Blair/Bush attack on Iraq designed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMDs. At the time I couldn’t help wondering why an invasion killing tens or even hundreds of thousands was necessary. It seemed to me that all the US and UK needed to do was make contact with a few of Saddam’s top military and offer them a deal. The deal could have been something like this: If you help us get Saddam, his ghastly sons and a few other top Iraqis whom we don’t like and if you give us free access to your country, then we’ll let you keep your looted billions and palaces and whores and fleets of luxury cars etc etc. But if you don’t work with us to topple Saddam, we’ll bomb your cess-pit country back to the Stone Age and we’ll obliterate you. Have we got a deal?
This brings us to Trump. Trump wasn’t too pleased with Venezuelan mafia boss, Nicholas Maduro. He could have done a Blair/Bush and invaded the country thus getting the US involved in yet another grinding, seemingly never-ending war. But Trump is a businessman, not a politician. For him most issues can be solved by making a deal. With Venezuela the deal was something like: We’re taking Maduro to rot in a US prison for the rest of his life. If you work with us by selling us your oil, throwing out the Cubans, Russians and Chinese and spending some of your oil revenues on your people instead of stealing everything, then you can stay in power. If it’s no deal, we’ll bomb your pathetic little military into dust and either kill you or let your own people lynch you. Do we have a deal?
Of course, this was not perfect for freedom and democracy in Venezuela. But it was a step in the right direction and also gave Trump a ‘double whammy – without Venezuelan oil, tottering Cuba would collapse and then he could offer a deal to Cuba’s leaders. Trump may thus get indirect control of both Venezuela and Cuba without the loss of a single American life. Pity Blair/Bush didn’t try this approach with Iraq.
Now it’s Iran’s turn. From what little I understand (mainly from watching ‘Tousi TV’ on YouTube) Trump has offered the mad mullahs a deal: stop killing your people, stop all nuclear development, get rid of your ballistic missiles, stop threatening Israel, stop funding terrorism and release all your political prisoners. If you don’t agree, we’ll destroy your lousy regime and then help the Iranians hunt you down and lynch the lot of you.
Of course, the mad mullahs are not as sensible as the Venezuelans. So they have rejected the deal and stopped all negotiations with the Americans. Hopefully the US will soon attack and annihilate the IRGC and the mad mullahs.
But what I wanted to bring out in this blog is Trump’s genius in applying business dealmaking to international diplomacy. And I wanted to suggest that such an approach could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives had this been used in the last 20-30 years of local wars instead of the politicians’ approach of assuming invasion and war were the only option.
Our politicians tell us so many lies, it’s often difficult to choose your favourite. But there’s one that our current Labour Government keeps using which I quite like – “We’re putting more money into people’s pockets“.
Sounds great. But how is our economically-challenged Government putting more money into people’s pockets? Well, they’re trying to slow down the increase in energy bills. But that’s not putting more money into people’s pockets, that’s taking slightly less money out of people’s pockets.
More ‘Breakfast Clubs’. But these ‘Breakfast Clubs’ have to be paid for. As Britain is effectively bankrupt with the Government spending much more than it takes in tax, this means more borrowing, means higher interest rates for the Government, means higher taxes, means less money in people’s pockets.
Then there’s the really big one – increasing the minimum wage. Google tells us: ‘The National Minimum Wage (NMW) is set to increase from 1 April 2025 to between £11.82 to £12.39 an hour to reflect the cost of living under Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay’.
But who pays for this increase? The Government? No. Employers? Yes. And how do employers pay for this increase in the minimum wage? There seem to be three main ways:
Absorb the cost – thus reducing profits and therefore taxes paid on those profits. This means the Government (which refuses to cut, and in fact keeps increasing, public spending) then has to increase taxes to make up for the falling tax revenue thus taking more money out of people’s pockets
Raise prices – but if shop, restaurant and other prices increase to pay for the increased minimum wage, while some people will have a little bit more money in their pockets, many will have less money in their pockets
Cut jobs (US experience) – if the salary bill keeps increasing, many companies will freeze recruitment and even cut jobs. Some recent research in the US showed that just in 2025, more than 20,000 jobs were lost in California’s ‘fast food’ sector after Governor Gavin Newsom increased the minimum wage from just over $14 per hour to over $16 per hour on 1 January 2025. California’s minimum wage will increase again on 1 January 2026. Of course, you may think that flipping burgers or warming up pizzas is not much of a job. But for many young people these minimum wage jobs provide their first step into work and for students they provide vital money to finance their studies and living costs.
Cut jobs (UK experience) – The UK hospitality sector experienced significant job losses in 2025, with nearly 9,000 roles cut in December 2025 alone following the Autumn Budget, bringing total losses to over 20,000 since September 2025. Rising employment costs, including increased National Insurance Contributions and minimum wage, have driven this decline, with warnings that up to 100,000 more jobs are at risk. And, of course, job cuts mean more unemployed, means more benefits spending, means the Government having to find more money, means higher taxes, means taking more money out of people’s pockets
Oh, and I thought it worth mentioning New York. Under its exciting new socialist/communist Religion of Peace and Prosperity Mayor, Zohran ‘Mad-man’ Mamdani, effective January 1, 2026, New York State’s minimum wage increases to $17.00 per hour with the intention of raising this to $30 per hour by 2030.
I’ll leave it up to you to work out whether this will lead to a wonderful economic boom in New York with millions of lower-paid workers delighted at having more money in their pockets or whether this will be an economic disaster leading the the closure of thousands of shops, restaurants and bars and a massive increase in unemployment leading to deserted dangerous streets thus turning the city from a thriving metropolis into a dystopian poverty- and crime-ridden slum.
A couple of blogs ago, I tried to highlight the economic destruction California governor, Gavin Newsom, was inflicting on his once prosperous state by obessively pursuing economically-suicidal, Ed-Milibandesque Net Zero policies. I listed a few major companies which have started closing down their California operations. Since then, I’ve seen there are many more moving out of the state, for example Intel, Coca Cola, Shell and MacDonalds. These are not small companies and their departure will mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs – Shell, for example, are reported to be closing around 1,100 gas stations. The exodus from California will also mean a massive loss of tax revenue for the state to squander on all its woke schemes.
But don’t worry, the California legislature has a cunning (Baldrick-like) plan. In November 2026, the Californian lawmakers will debate a proposed “Billionaires’ Tax”. Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The California billionaire tax would apply to about 200 California billionaires who reside in the state. Roughly 90% of funds would go to healthcare and the rest to public K-14 education and state food assistance.
The tax would be retrospective in that it would apply to all assets held in the state on 1 January 2026.
Now, dear reader(s), what do you think has been the effect of this brilliant proposal?
A: California’s billionaires have been jumping with joy at the opportunity to give more of their wealth to be squandered by California’s useless public sector?
B: California’s billionaires are upping legal or even physical sticks and moving out of the state.
If you have the intelligence of a Gavin Newsom or our own lovable Rachel Reeves, you probably believe the outcome is – A. If you have even a semblance of a functioning brain, you’ll know the answer is obviously – B.
So far it has been reported that the following have been hitting the road:
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin
Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel
Oracle co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Larry Ellison
DoorDash co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Andy Fang
and quite a few others
Supporters of the proposal said the measure would raise about $100 billion and pushed back against the idea that billionaires would flee. “We see a lot of cheap talk from billionaires,” said UC Berkeley law professor Brian Galle, who helped write the proposal. “Some people do actually leave and change their behavior, but the vast bulk of wealthy people don’t, because it doesn’t make sense.”
Well, he would say that wouldn’t he? I just checked the political affiliation of Berkeley on Google and learnt: The University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley) is widely recognized as one of the most left-wing or progressive universities in the United States. It is renowned for its history of political activism, starting with the 1960s Free Speech Movement, and remains a liberal institution with a majority of students identifying as progressive.
Student Body: A 2022 survey showed that over two-thirds of undergraduates described their political views as “slightly liberal,” “liberal,” or “very liberal”.
Political Reputation: Often called a “progressive bastion” or the “People’s Republic of Berkeley,” the campus is known for its strong liberal ideology.
Hey, lefties, what about the Laffer Curve?
You’ve all presumably heard of the Laffer Curve. The message from the Laffer Curve is that people don’t mind paying taxes up to certain level, especially if they feel they are getting value for the taxes they pay – good public sevices, crime-free streets, border enforcement, proper healthcare etc etc. But once taxes go above a certain level, people start to feel they are being fleeced and start changing behaviours. So increases in tax rates start to result in falling tax revenues. We had perfect examples of this in Britain:
the Rachel Reeves NI jobs tax resulted in a collapse in hiring, an increase in unemployment and thus an increase in unemployment benefits which had to be paid. It has also pushed the UK into recession leading to falling company profits and thus falling tax revenues
the Rachel Reeves 20% VAT on private schools led to 25,000 departures since the policy was announced, with many families citing the increased financial pressure as unsustainable. It would have cost the government about £8,000 per year per pupil when these 25,000 children returned to state schools – about £20m a year
Though, perhaps we shouldn’t blame Reeves for her blundering incompetence? Probably her budgets are are actually written by Torsten ‘tax-tax-tax’ Bell and Darren ‘they’re mostly women and children’ Jones.
The next major economy which is about to go down the ‘higher taxes, less revenue’ road to self-destruction is, of course, New York under its exciting new woke, left-wing, Religion of Peace mayor.
It’s extraordinary that Lefties don’t seem to understand that higher taxation eventually leads to falling revenues. And even more extraordinary that people keep voting for these lefty eejits when the result of their policies is predictably always economic devastation.
Below I have copied and pasted a blog I wrote just over a week ago. In it I tried to explain that Trump’s supposed ‘threat’ to take over Greenland was just typical Trump ‘Art of the Deal’ tactics. You make a totally over-the-top demand, your adversaries do the headless chicken dance, you negotiate and then you get what you always realistically wanted.
This seems to be what has happened with Greenland. Although many of the aspects of the deal seem to be unclear, I believe it allows Trump to set up military bases in Greenland which will be under US control. In addition it commits NATO to increase its opeations in the Arctic to ward off Russian and Chinese encroachment. This is probably what Trump wanted all along.
But today’s blog is not about Trump and Greenland. It’s about how MSM ‘journalists’ have reported the story. There were absurd headlines like ‘Trump to invade Greenland‘, ‘Trump declares war on NATO’, ‘Trump hands Putin a victory‘ and even ‘US soldiers may refuse to fight in Greenland’.
Journalism has become a tough business. Before the days of the Internet, newspapers could only get a vague idea of which articles attracted the most readers from doing market research. But now, with the Internet, editors can see exactly how many readers click on each article. This puts tremendous pressure on journalists to get the most clicks they can. After all, if your click rate drops and some young up-and-coming star gets more clicks than you or if your ever-so-friendly, always-smiling colleagues decide to knife you in the back, a falling click rate on your articles can end your career. That’s something you definitely don’t want if you have a mortgage to pay and even school fees as well.
So, a high click rate means survival. I humbly suggest that those ‘journalists’ who wrote about America invading Greenland probably knew they were writing complete nonsense. But they also knew such extreme articles would generate clicks. So they decided to knowingly produce utter garbage to protect their lousy careers. I further suspect that many/most MSM articles are hyperbolic trash churned out to get clicks and save careers.
Though the mad battle for clicks is not limited to the MSM media. There’s much more garbage on the alternative media. I came across a YouTube video yesterday in which the presenter interviewed a self-appointed ‘medical expert’ who claimed that judging by what he saw of Trump’s public appearances, Trump would die in 2 to 4 months. The video may be right. But I suspect it is just clickbait garbage, though it did get a few hundred thousand views. So writing complete BS seems to be a lucrative activity for so many people who want us to take their pronouncements seriously.
Here’s the blog I wrote about 10 days ago:
Following the US raid on Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro, Trump has also reportedly doubled down on his claim that “the US wants Greenland”.
This seems to have caused absolute panic amongst other NATO countries and their rulers are rushing around squawking like headless chickens (do headless chickens squawk?). Meanwhile the mainstream media vomits out endless bilge about how a US “invasion” of Greeneland could shatter NATO. And the Danish government beats its chest declaring boldly that Denmark’s ‘massive armed forces’ – about 20 soldiers who only work Monday to Friday from 09.30 to 16.30 and probably have about two rusty rifles to share between them – will defend Greenland against the evil Yankees.
What a load of absolute bull’s manure!
This is classic Trump ‘Art of the Deal‘. You decide what you want. You then make a completely unrealistic demand which is well in excess of what you really want – “I’m gonna invade Greenland”. Your opponent has a panicked reaction to that outlandish demand rather than having the intelligence to work out what you really want. Then you reach the compromise you always wanted.
Trump can see the strategic and economic importance of Greenland. He probably wants security guarantees keeping Russia and Chinese influence out of Greenland. And when all the heat and noise about the supposed “invasion” of Greenland dies down, Trump will get what he wanted all along.
My dog could have worked this out. But apparently this is well beyond the intellectual capabilities of our Trump-hating rulers and mainstream media.
Yes, there it is – possibly the stupidest title for a blog ever written? After all you can hardly compare dull, dismal Britain to sunny, joyous California. And, I suspect most of us would much rather be living in the sunshine and freedom of California than in Starmer’s depressing, increasingly communist, freedom-crushing Britain.
But there are some possibly surprising similarities between Britain and America’s once most economically-successful state. For a start, with a GDP of around $4.0 trillion, California’s GDP is fairly similar to Britain’s $3.96 trillion. If California were a country it would be the 6th largest in the world with Britain at 7th place.
But the greatest (and most worrying) similarity between California and Britain is that both are run by politicians who are actively trying to destroy their economies and impoverish their people due to their obsession with ever more regulations and achieving completely pointless Net Zero targets.
I haven’t seen ths story anywhere in Britain’s mainstream media. In fact I wasn’t aware of this similarity till a couple of days ago. I was watching a YouTube video about economics. In the sidebar I noticed a video about US oil giant Chevron closing down its California operations and leaving the state completely. Because I watched that video, the YouTube algorithm proposed a whole series of other videos about major US companies – Space-X, Oracle, Palantir, Airbnb, Hewlett Packard and, most recently, Tesla – all leaving California.
Why are they leaving? Because California governor, Gavin Newsom, affectionately known as Grabbin Newscum by many Californians, has declared that California will become the greenest US state and this will supposedly create hundreds of thousands of well-paid ‘green’ jobs. Does this sound vaguely familiar to Ed Miliband’s crusade to make Britain a ‘green energy superpower’ which will supposedly create hundreds of thousands of well-paid ‘green’ jobs?
How will Newscum achieve this? By setting up regulators to dream up ever more restrictive regulations covering water quality, ground quality, building control and much more. In addition he will force all businesses to become ‘carbon neutral’ (whatever that means) or be compelled to buy economically-crushing carbon credits and/or risk massive fines and will impose deadlines after which it will be illegal to buy petrol powered cars and much else.
So, how is it going for California? California is de-industrialising and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost instead of being created. Many businesses, including high-tec companies, are packing up and leaving for states like Texas, Nevada and Florida which welcome them.
Newscum is creating the same doom-loop of decline in California that Miliband is forcing on the UK:
increase industry’s and business costs making companies close down or move their operations to more business-friendly jurisdictions
this reduces the tax take so taxes have to be increased to make up for the losses
higher taxes make more companies move or close completely
this reduces the tax take even more so taxes have to be increased even more to make up for the losses
and so on
If you go onto YouTube and put ‘California governor in shock’ into the Search bar, you’ll get a whole lot of videos reporting on how company after company are leaving California. There’s also a rather amusing satirical video called ‘Hotel California Parody: Welcome to the State You’ll Never Leave‘.
Here’s just one of the serious videos about companies leaving California. I’ve linked to it as it describes quite well the doom-loop of decline being imposed on both California and Britain by their Greta-worshipping governments.
Still, in spite of the economic disaster and impoverishment of their people, at least California has better weather than Britain:
Professor Google tells us: “You know a man by the company he keeps” is an old proverb meaning a person’s character, values, and nature can be judged by the friends and associates they choose, as people tend to surround themselves with those who are similar to them in behavior and beliefs. (The highlighting was done by Professor Google, not me)
This phrase has been attributed to many sources, for example:
So let’s apply this to our current prime minister – towering international statesman and (IMHO) recidivist liar Keir ‘not queer, never here’ Starmer. We’ll look at one recent arrival in Britain and one recent non-arrival in Britain.
Welcome to Britain
Let’s start with an Egyptian gentleman called Alaa Ahmed Seif al Islam Abd El-Fattah. As I’m sure you know, this person was recently welcomed into Britain by our ‘massively popular’ Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said he was “delighted” that Alaa Abd el-Fattah had arrived from Egypt after a travel ban imposed by Cairo was lifted following lobbying by ministers.
Wikipedia informs us:
Following Abd El-Fattah’s arrival to the United Kingdom in December 2025, controversy emerged over his earlier posts on X (formerly Twitter). El-Fattah wrote “I’m telling you that I hate white people” and referred to British people as “dogs and monkeys”.[116] On 3 July 2010, he expressed support for killing “any colonialists and specially zionists“, referring to such acts as “heroic”.[117] On 10 September 2010, he posted that “there was no genocide against Jews by the Nazis – after all, many Jews are left”.[116] On 3 November 2010, he referred to himself as “a violent person who advocated the killing of all Zionists including civilians”.[118] On 8 August 2011, during riots in England, he wrote “Now my real criticism of these post-police murder riots is the wrong focus, go burn the City or Downing Street, or hunt police fools”.[116] He also wrote in the same year that “police are not human” and “don’t have rights, we should just kill them all“.[116] In 2012 he posted: “I am a racist, I don’t like white people.”
If Wikipedia is to believed, this chap seems rather less than charming.
When Opposition MPs called for Abd El-Fattah’s British citizenship to be revoked and for him to be deported, Starmer hid behind Human Rights law in order to keep this gentleman in Britain.
This is the kind of person Prime Minister Starmer admires and believes will make a valuable contribution to British society.
Not welcome in Britain
Here’s Eva Vlaardingerbroek:
Not only is she stunningly beautiful, but she is also highly intelligent and incredibly articulate. If I remember correctly, she was often interviewed by the brilliant Mark Steyn on GB News before Steyn was banned by Ofcom for two mortal sins:
questioning whether the ‘safe and effective’ vaccines against the Chinese lab-leaked plague were actually ‘safe and effective’
repeatedly reporting on the mass rape, beating and torture of often underage White girls by gangs of multi-culturally-enriching men usually from our favourite religion
Eva Vlaardingerbroek (if I remember correctly) has been an outspoken critic of mass open-borders immigration and the Islamisation of many European countries. She has already given a speech at one Tommy Robinson rally and was coming to Britain to speak at another Tommy Robinson rally. But Eva won’t be coming to Britain as her travel authorization has been cancelled as Starmer’s government has decided that Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s presence in Britain would not be ‘conducive to the public good’.
You can tell a man by the company he keeps
These are just two recent examples. But they do, I believe, give us an insight into the kind of person Starmer is.
By the way, while we’re on the subject of those Starmer likes to have around, has anybody seen anything about the strange story of a couple of alleged Ukrainian rent boys and alleged arson attacks on a house and car associated with Starmer? I suspect this story has been killed by a ‘super injunction’. A super-injunction is a UK court order that not only blocks the publication of private or confidential information but also forbids reporting on the existence of the injunction itself, creating a complete media blackout on the topic, even preventing journalists from saying a gag order is in place.
There is a link below to the latest Tousi TV report on the uprising in Iran. Mahyar Tousi is an Iranian based in London who produces YouTube videos about politics, especially concerning the situation in Iran.
Tousi starts by focusing on the Met police’s treatment of Iranians protesting against the murderous ayatollahs’ blood-soaked regime outside the Iranian embasssy in London. The Met police seem rather more interested in ‘policing’ these protestors than they were in policing the anti-Israel protests which took place on many weekends last year.
Good heavens. Could it be that our once-respected but now despised police are somewhat biased?
Surely not!
Meanwhile, Starmer continues to make mealy-mouthed excuses why the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) cannot be categorised as a terrorist organisation. And, of course, this comes just after Starmer joyously welcomed some antisemitic, hate-filled Egyptian creature into Britain. So, I think we know where Starmer’s and the Met police’s sympathies are:
Any enemy of Israel and Jews is a friend of our (IMHO) worthless PM Starmer and the pathetic Met police:
On Tuesday, Trump promised the Iranian protestors that “help is on its way”. He then threatened the murderous mad Ayatollahs that the US would attack with overwhelming force if the shooting of protestors continued and if executions of protestors started.
So, proving they’re not totally mad, the mad mullahs stopped shooting protestors and delayed the first public hangings of protestors. There are now two main possibilities:
this puts Trump in a quandry as he has no obvious reason to launch a military strike on Iran
this allows Trump to chicken out as he can now claim it was he and he alone who put a stop to the mad mullahs’ mass murdering and therefore he has no need to launch a military strike.
I have absolutely no idea which of the above two possibilities is the most likely. But I believe this is a disaster for the Middle East and even the whole world. The mad mullahs’ murderous regime was on the ropes. Possibly more than 12,000 protestors had been killed demanding their freedom. Over $1 billion was secretly moved out of Iran (mainly through London) as Iran’s leaders prepared to flee the country if their regime collapsed. The mad mullahs had about 135,000 armed lunatics in the IRGC. But the Iranian army has over 650,000 men. All it needed was a US attack and the army to defect to the Shah’s son and the mullahs would be toast.
If the mad mullahs were overthrown, Iran could become free, wealthy and westerrnised. The Iranian nuclear programame could be abandonned. There could be peace between Iran and Israel. And Iran’s proxies – Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and others – would be defanged as they would lose their main sponsor.
But it looks like the mad mullahs’ murderous regime will survive, re-arm with the help of Russia, China and South Africa and continue handing Iran’s oil wealth to its terrorist proxies. As for ordinary Iranians, there will be a brutal and vengeful nationwide clampdown with mass arrests, torture and executions.
The opportunity of a lifetime to bring peace to the Middle East looks like it has been missed. This is a sad week for the whole world.
As for Trump, he will be remembered for chickening out – not the legacy he wanted.
More than 1,000 people, including dozens of celebrities signed a letter calling for the British government to secure the release of Egyptian-British (IMHO) raving, dangerous, anti-semitic, West-hating, Alaa Abd el-Fattah.
Actors Judi Dench; Carey Mulligan; Bill Nighy; Mark Ruffalo; Riz Ahmed; and Olivia Colman were among the celebrities to sign a letter calling on the British government to “unequivocally condemn” the 40-year-old’s prolonged detention in Egypt. I believe Britain’s most-respected political commentator, a former football kicker, Gary Lineker, was also a signatory. There were also videos made by ‘actors’ Brian Cox and Olivia Colman calling for the (IMHO) antisemite’s release. And, of course, WEF robot, Keir Starmer, celebrated when this (IMHO) repulsive creature ‘returned’ to Britain, a country in which he had never actually lived.
And then let’s consider the Gaza anti-Israel protests. Every week tens of thousands of ‘from-the-river-to-the-sea’ protestors marched through London screaming their support for terrorists Hamas and condemning Israel for supposed ‘genocide’.
Over the last couple of weeks somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 innocent Iranians have been slaughtered by the gerontocratic Mad Mullahs and their murderous followers. And it has been reported that today, Wednesday, the religious fanatics who have wrecked Iran will start hanging many of the protestors they have arrested.
Perhaps I haven’t been paying attention? But I haven’t noticed the likes of Brian Cox and Olivia Colman and Gary Linneker signing angry letters to the government demanding Britain supports the Iranian protestors. Nor have I noticed any massive protest marches through London against the Iranian ‘genocide’ except for some smaller demonstrations by exiled Iranians living in Britain.
I’m not a cynic. But I could imagine that a cynic might get the odd (and obviously mistaken) impression that British ‘progressives’ and lefties and others of their ilk are outraged when Israelis try to defend themselves against murderous Islamic fanatics but really don’t give a toss when Muslims mass-murder other Muslims.
David Craig, on February 2nd, 2026
