I haven’t been studying the news about the Meningitis outbreak too closely. But from what I have seen, it appears that the ‘brilliant’ UKHSA (UK Health Security Agency) have traced the likely source to a nightclub called ‘Chemistry’ or something like that at some university or other. And the reason the Meningitis has spread, the UKHSA has informed journalists, may be linked to the fact that we stopped vaccinating children against Meningitis a few years ago.
From what I’ve seen, the ‘brilliant’ (and no doubt politically correct, woke) UKHSA has not thought to mention something called the Meningitis Belt. Here it is:
And here’s another image of the Meningitis Belt and other Meningitis hot spots on a map of the world:
It appears that no Meningitis hot spot anywhere in the world can compare with the African Meningitis Belt.
Of course, I’m not an infectious diseases expert. In fact, I’m not an expert in anything. But I can’t help wondering whether the UKHSA and the BBC and the mainstream media have been ‘encouraged’ to avoid linking the current Meningitis outbreak to the invasion of our crumbling country by all sorts of wonderful culturally-enriching and exotic disease-carrying illegal migrants? Could our rulers possibly be a little reluctant to let us know that the recent rise in cases of exotic diseases like Meningitis, Tuberculosis and Diphtheria have been caused by their policy of replacing White British with Third-world flotsam?
Apparently, you’re encouraged to get vaccinated against Meningitis should you be visiting any of the countries in the Meningitis Belt. But if you flood into Britain illegally from countries in the Meningitis Belt, you’re welcomed with open arms, a four-star hotel, free money, free phone, free everything and given no proper health screening at all.
Oh, the joys of Starmer’s open-borders, ‘let’s replace the White British’ immigration.
By the way, I haven’t heard Starmer mentioning “smashing the evil people-smuggling gangs” recently. I wonder why not?????
Britain has survived many catastrophes in the past. But it has always managed to fight back and renew itself. However, I worry that this time, we will never recover from 14 years of the treacherous incompetence and stupidity of LibDems pretending to be Tories and now up to five years of globalist communists pretending to represent the British working classes.
There are three main reasons for my weekend pessimism:
we are no longer British
the majority loathe our country and culture
Labour will deliberately sabotage the country if they believe Reform might win the next election
We are no longer British
Much has been written about this, so I’ll keep this brief. It is estimated that by the 2050s White British will be a minority in their own country. We will no longer be a cohesive population. Instead Britain will consist of ethnic and religious groups all fighting metaphorically (and maybe even kinetically) for power and their share of our ever-diminishing national wealth. Our new friends and neighbours from Eritrea and Sudan and Crapistan and wherever are rather unlikely to be particularly patriotic to Britain. Instead their loyalties will lie with their group. We are becoming Lebanon and a failed state and the government will continue enforcing ever more oppressive measures to try to prevent White British fighting back against the foreign invasion and societal destruction of their country.
The majority loathe our country and culture
The latest IPSOS poll of voting intentions puts Refom ahead of all the other parties:
But what is possibly more important is not how any individual party might perform, but how the electorate splits between those who believe in Britain and those who loathe our country and its history, loathe the idea of anyone becoming successful and wealthy by creating jobs and are determined to bring us all down to the lowest level by destroying what little is left of our industry with the ludicrous but economically-suicidal Net Zero fantasy.
The pro-Britain voting intention stands at 45% (Reform and Conservative). Though after the last 14 years of Tory incompetence, lies and gerenal uselessness one could question whether the Conservatives actually believe in Britain. But the anti-British voting intention is 47% (Labour, Greens and LibDems). The majority of those polled don’t want Britain to succeed.
If you’re an international company or an oil company and you look at the hostile political environment against business and against using British energy resources, you’re not going to invest in Britain. Optimists might argue that if Reform get in and cut corporation taxes and issue North Sea exploration licences, the country could be saved from economic collapse. But all companies know that the political pendulum always swings and that a Reform government could easily be replaced by a leftist anti-Britain, anti-business, pro-Net Zero coalition. So there’s no point in investing in Britain. After all, even if drilling were to restart in the North Sea, a new leftist government could impose such high taxes that any oil or gas company could see their UK business crippled.
Labour will deliberately sabotage the country
We see this happening already. Not only are Labour doing absolutely nothing to stop the illegal migrant invasion, but they are desperately protecting the incentives – hotel accommodation, free healthcare, free phones, free money, free legal aid to fight deportation, free everything – which make Britain the destination of choice, Moreover, Labour are implementing ever more oppressive policies to prevent British people protesting:
two-tier policing which brutally punishes White British while being more than lenient to anyone from any other ethnic background
£1.8 billion spent on digital ID so the government caan increase its control over us
a new definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ which suffocates free speech and protects a group which some British fear due to what they have seen in other countries
government policy, especially foreign policy, now made mainly to favour a certain religious group against the interests of the British people
Meanwhile Ed Miliband is condemning us to the highest energy prices in the developed world by:
issuing contracts for wind and solar power which are much higher than current prices
ordering exploratory fracking wells to be concreted over so they can never be used
And Rachel Reeves’s (actually Torsten ‘tax-tax-tax’ Bell’s and Darren ‘they’re mostly women and children’ Jones’s) flood of anti-business taxes will destroy many British companies leaving a wrecked economy for whoever replaces our worthless, antiBritish Labour excuse for a government.
Conclusion
That, in brief, is why I fear Britain will never recover from its current rush to commit societal, cutural and economic suicide.
As some of us cower in our soon to be unheated, unlit homes, shaking with terror at the thought that Angela Rayner or Mad Ed Miliband may be our next Prime Minister, I thought I’d take a break from the usual doom and gloom and set a little one-question quiz for readers.
Here’s a very short clip from the 1997 blockbuster film ‘Titanic’ starring Leonardo DiCrapio and Kate Winsome. Can you spot the huge mistake in the film clip?
Did you get it?
The ship was heading straight for an iceberg. If the officer on duty had actually shouted “hard to starboard“, then the ship would have struck the iceberg on the port side. But the Titanic suffered damage on its starboard (right) side. The iceberg scraped along the forward-right side below the waterline, opening six compartments to the sea. So the ship must have been trying to turn to the port side but not managed to turn sufficiently quickly.
There are various theories why the Titanic couldn’t turn:
perhaps the rudder was undersized?
perhaps the ship was going too fast as the captain was trying to ensure the Titanic reached New York in record time on its first voyage? So the ship was going too fast to turn in time. Some other ships had actually stopped for the night when they realised how many icebergs there were
perhaps there was nobody with the required sailing experience in charge as the captain had gone to bed even though he knew there were reports from other ships of icebergs?
perhaps the two sailors on watch didn’t have binoculars as the officer with the key to the binoculars storage had been moved to another ship?
It’s odd that the scriptwriters should make such a basic error which I’m sure you all spotted.
My blog is not intended to be about me and my boring little life. My aim is to find stories, or aspects of stories, which are not properly covered by the mainstream media. But today’s blog wil be an exception.
I imagine most of us have had some form of rudimentary training in CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). You kneel over a dummy torso of a person, try a bit of pushing on the dummy’s chest to the beat of the BeeGees song ‘Staying Alive’ and breathe a bit into the dummy’s mouth holding its nose or something like that. Google tells us:
“CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) is an emergency procedure combining chest compressions and rescue breaths to maintain blood flow and oxygenation when the heart stops. Act immediately if a person is unresponsive and not breathing: call emergency services (e.g., 1669/911), push hard/fast (2–2.4 inches, 100-120 bpm) in the center of the chest, and use an AED if available.”
We’re also told to continue CPR until a trained medic arrives.
A few weeks ago I was on holiday in a country known for its hot weather, perfect beaches, excellent spicy food and what is euphemistically called its “vibrant nightlife”. During my daily afternoon walk along a beach, I saw a man lying face down at the water’s edge, his head lolling from side to side as each wave came in. Standing over him was a woman – I assume his wife – calling his name.
I ran over and tried to drag him out of the water, but he was too heavy. I ran to get help and a big muscled shaven-headed guy ran down to assist me. We pulled the drowned man out of the water, rolled him onto his back and began CPR. I have a feeling I may have dislocated the drowned man’s shoulder during this. But I guess that was the least of his problems.
During CPR there seemed to be no reaction, except that some kind of foam started coming from the drowned man’s mouth. That made it rather difficult to do the breathing part of CPR. I have since found out that the foam was sea water mixed with fluid from the man’s lungs.
As far as I could see, the drowned man was well and truly dead. His face was purple which suggested that his heart hadn’t pumped any blood for at least 30 minutes. Moreover, he cannot have drowned at the water’s edge. So his body must have drifted onto the shore after drowning and that would have taken some time.
We’re told that we should do CPR till trained medical help arrives, but I’ve since found out this is nonsense. Google tells us:
“CPR can save someone if started immediately, ideally within 1–3 minutes of the heart stopping. Brain damage is likely if CPR is not started within 5 minutes, and death is probable after 8–10 minutes. Immediate bystander CPR can double or triple survival chances, with efforts sometimes successful up to 10 minutes post-arrest”
I understand why we’re told to do CPR till medical help arrives as instructors don’t want untrained people like myself making judgements on whether it is worth continuing CPR. But I felt uncomfortable continuing CPR after I was sure the drowned man was dead. CPR can be quite violent and in some way it felt we were abusing the drowned man’s body. Moreover, there is a risk during CPR of breaking a few ribs and maybe even forcing a broken rib to puncture a lung. Though, of course, that’s unimportant compared to saving the person’s life.
Some things I learnt were that CPR training should have included:
doing CPR is much more complicated in real life/death than we’re led to believe during training
our CPR training should have gone through the most typical situations CPR is used – heart attacks, electric shocks, drowning etc – and the differences we were likely to experience in each scenario
honesty about survival chances in the first 10 minutes of administering CPR
honesty about the degree of violence which needs to be used
how to identify signs that a person is dead
how to overcome the issues of being reluctant to do violence to a dead person’s body
The drowned man turned out to be a 79-year-old Danish man on holiday with his wife. I imagine he must have had a heart attack while swimming and then drowned but, of course, I don’t know exactly what happened. Here’s the poor guy whose life I didn’t manage to save:
You’ll see the kind of wooden structure behind the onlookers and medics. That’s where there were a few rudimentary food and drink stalls and massage beds. The problem was that the people up on the structure couldn’t see the beach, so nobody noticed the drowning/drowned man. If the people up on the structure could have seen the beach, perhaps someone could have noticed the drowning man earlier and more could have been done to save him. It was only because I was walking along the beach that I saw him. And by then, of course, it was too late to save him.
The main West-European countries are bankrupt. Here’s a list of debt levels:
And here’s a nice visual showing the same thing:
Greece, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France and the UK all have government debt which is higher then their GDP. These countries are bankrupt, insolvent, bust, up sh*t creek without a paddle. Yet their governments continue to borrow ever more money so they can continue spending more than they take in tax.
In fact, the situation is much worse that depicted above. In Britain, for example, the total cost of public sector pensions is a significant long-term liability, with the bill for paying retired workers in 2025 reaching £56.8 billion. Total liabilities are estimated to be £1.3 trillion. Though this figure is probably an underestimate as Labour have hired over than 65,000 more useless, unproductive, self-serving, skive-from-home, public-sector wastes-of-skin since they came to power.
Labour, like governments in most West-European countries keep on increasing direct taxes and stealth taxes. But this goes nowhere near being enough to pay for Labour’s financial profligacy. We’re told that taxes have to go up to pay for an ageing population. So our increasing taxes are apparently our fault for living too long. But the real reasons for our government’s drunken-sailor spending include:
paying for several million often uneducated, often unemployable, often criminal pieces of Third-world detritus imported to replace the indigenous white British population
increasing benefits to such a level that many families get much more money from benefits than they ever could from working
allowing about nine million British of working age to sit at home watching Netflix and suchlike on their widescreen TVs without any requirement for them to look for a job
handing out billions each year in supposed ‘foreign aid’ to be stolen by the elites in the world’s most corrupt countries
But there’s still lots of money
None of our governments will cut spending. So they have to find more of our money to take: Fortunately for our governments, there are three huge piles of our money which they haven’t yet fully plundered:
the value of our property
our pension savings
our stocks and shares
The value of our property
Starting in April 2028, the UK government will introduce a “High Value Council Tax Surcharge” (popularly known as a mansion tax) on residential properties in England valued at £2 million or more. This annual, recurring surcharge targets high-value homes, with projected payments ranging from £2,500 to £7,500 depending on the property’s value.
With taxes like income tax and capital gains tax, we are being taxed on money which we hold. But a ‘mansion tax’ is based on a completely different principle – we don’t actually have that money till we sell our properties and yet we will be taxed on money we don’t have.
Moreover, by calling this a ‘mansion tax’, the government cleverly portrays it as something only the ‘greedy rich’ will have to pay. But, as with all taxes, this ‘mansion tax’ will keep on expanding to properties of ever lower value.
Our pension savings
We have about £3.2 trillion in our pension funds. That’s money our government would desperately like to get hold of. The Labour government have already launched an attack on our pension money.
The Mansion House Accord (2025) is a voluntary agreement involving major UK pension providers to invest at least 10% of their defined contribution (DC) default funds into private markets by 2030, with 5% directed towards UK firms. Approximately 4% to 6% of UK pension fund assets are currently invested in UK equities, a significant drop from over 50% in the late 1990s. The wonderful thing about this money-grab is that even if the economy stagnates or goes into recession, the extra money the government is forcing fund managers to put into UK shares will probably push up share values. So the government can claim, as useless Rachel did recently, that stock market performance proves her economic plans are working.
Our pension fund managers have a fiduciary duty to maximise returns for those pension funds. But the Labour government is forcing fund managers to put our money into assets (UK companies) which managers know will be less valuable than many of their foreign investments.
However. the Mansion House Agreement is only a start of the government’s plundering of our pension savings. Soon the government will be forcing pension funds to invest some of our money in so-called ‘infrastructure bonds’ – basically forcing pension fund managers to pay for new roads, railways (like the wonderful HS2 catastrophe), hospitals, mad Ed Miliband’s windmills etc etc as the government no longer has the money to pay for these out of our taxes.
Our stocks and shares
We are already taxed on the dividends our shares pay us. The UK dividend allowance is the amount of dividends you can receive each tax year without having to pay tax on them. For the 2024/25 tax year, this allowance is set at £500, down from £5,000 in previous years. But we’re not taxed on the value of our shares until we sell tham and make a capital gain. Though too often that supposed capital gain is theoretical as it is due mainly to inflation rather than us having any real capital gain.
I attach below a video about a scheme cooked up by the Dutch government. The Dutch government tried to introduce a tax on the supposed growth in value of people’s shares even though shareholders won’t have realised that value as they won’t have sold their shares. I only watched the video quickly. But from what I saw, the Dutch Supreme Court threw out an earlier version of this tax. But The Dutch House of Representatives approved the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 (Actual Return Box 3 Act) on February 12, 2026, which introduces a 36% tax on actual investment returns, including unrealized gains (paper profits). While the bill still requires Senate (Eerste Kamer) approval, it is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2028.
Thieving our money and taxing fictional money?
What I’m getting is the impression that governments have taxed us to the hilt on money we actually have – salary, capital gains, dividends, our purchases (VAT). So now governments are attacking our savings either by stealing them by forcing those managing our savings to give them to the government to squander or by just assuming fictional gains which don’t actually exist and then taxing us on those fictional gains.
These are massive and worrying changes in taxation policy. But I haven’t seen anyone else notice this and understand the implications.
I don’t claim any originality here. I got the idea for this weekend’s blog from several of Simon Webb’s always excellent ‘History Debunked’ YouTube videos.
Apologies that this weekend’s blog may seem a bit long and boring. But I think it may be rather important.
I asked Google “How many species of humans are there?” The reply I got was:
While only one human species exists today—Homo sapiens—scientists estimate that at least 21 species of early humans (genus Homo) have existed throughout history, based on the fossil record. These extinct species include Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals), Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis. The exact number is debated due to evolving fossil discoveries and differing definitions of species.
I then checked with the source of truth – the BBC – and learnt:
“Not so very long ago, we shared this planet with several other species of human, all of them clever, resourceful and excellent hunters, so why did only Homo sapiens survive?”
This is the perceived wisdom – that there is now only one species of human. This is ‘settled science’ (just like Anthropogenic Global Warming and the “safe and effective vaccines”?). So we are told we are all one species – Homo sapiens – and that although there are clearly different races, all races are of equal value, equal intelligence, equal culture, equal everything.
But what if DNA analysis was done and it showed that humans from one part of the world tend to be larger and stronger than other humans, that some humans from another part of the world tend to have better cognitive skills, creativity and intelligence and some humans from another part of the world are so inbred that they have decreased the quality of their DNA and are actually regressing?
For example, the BBC tells us:
the first creature we would recognise as human first appeared in Africa two million years ago. Known as Homo ergaster, they made tools and were proficient hunters. Their bones suggest they would have been powerful runners, capable of speeds that would rival a modern Olympic athlete.
The BBC also informs us:
ergaster became the first human to leave Africa and colonise Asia. Here, in a new and lush environment, they evolved and got a new name, Homo erectus.
Now, hopefully things start to get more interesting. Here’s the BBC again:
Homo erectus was slightly bigger and more powerful than Homo sapiens, so why did we thrive when they did not? The most obvious answer is that we had bigger brains – but it turns out that what matters is not overall brain size but the areas where the brain is larger.
“The Homo erectus brain did not devote a lot of space to the part of the brain that controls language and speech,” said John Shea, professor of palaeoanthropology at Stony Brook University in New York.
“One of the crucial elements of Homo sapiens’ adaptations is that it combines complex planning, developed in the front of the brain, with language and the ability to spread new ideas from one individual to another.. “
“Planning, communication and even trade led, among other things, to the development of better tools and weapons which spread rapidly across the population”
The BBC version doesn’t mention the Neanderthals.
About 60,000 years ago, there were four main human secies – Homo sapiens in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia, Denisovans in parts of Asia and Homo erectus in some parts of the world.
Now let’s play a stupid game:
What if the Homo sapiens in subequatorial Africa either remained isolated or even interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus? This could have produced a human species that was physically and athetically strong
What if the Homo sapiens which remained in Northern Africa and parts of the Middle East didn’t interbreed with any other human species and even degraded its DNA through thousands of years of inbreeding?
What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Europe interbred with Neanderthals giving the new breed new skills and cognitive abilities which the original Homo sapiens didn’t possess?
What if the Homo sapiens which moved to Asia interbred with Denisovans creating a new species with its specific skills?
What if some Homo sapiens interbred with the more primitive Homo erectus producing a species which was genetically less advanced?
There are several clever people who have written best-selling books on why different parts of the world developed in different ways. For example, the 1998 bestseller “Guns, Germs and Steel” and the 2019 “Prisoners of Geography“. But, as far as I know, nobody has dared try to explain the different rates of development of different races in terms of them actually being different species.
Google informs us:
There are approximately 360 to 375recognized species of hummingbirds, belonging to the family Trochilidae
There are over 500 described species of sharks currently known to science, with some estimates exceeding 530
There are generally recognized to be 18 species of penguins, though some classifications range between 17 and 22 depending on whether certain populations are considered species or subspecie
There are approximately 30 to 80 species of true nettles within the Urtica genus, with 54 accepted species noted in global databases
Yet curiously, the only permitted ‘truth’ is that there is only one species of human being. However, the idea of there actually being several human species would go a long way to explaining why different parts of the world have developed in different ways going from the high culture and scientific achievements of Europeans (Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals) down to groups like aborigines and native Americans (possibly Homo sapiens interbred with Homo erectus) who didn’t even manage to invent the wheel.
Admitting that there are several species of humans, rather than just one species, would be catastrophic for the Kumbaya, ‘we-are-all-one-family’, ‘all-races-are-equal’ race relations industry. It would also suggest that if you did Bell Curves of specific characteristics – physical strength, intelligence, problem-solving or whatever – these would be quite different for the different human species.
Acceptance that there are different human species would also pose significant issues for policies around social cohesion. I’ll leave you to imagine the consequences. It would also affect how we view immigration. If we are just one species and all races are equal, it should be easy for new arrivals into a country to integrate and assimilate into that country’s values and way of life. But if we are different species, then questions could be asked about whether the arriving species can ever integrate with the indigenous species.
And so, political correctness instructs us to believe that alone among God’s creatures and plants, we humans are the only group where there is just one, and only one, species.
But then I came across a YouTube video in which presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer interviews a former British ambassador to Iran about the current situation.
In my extremely humble opinion (IMEHO), if this is the quality of British ambassadors, then (IMEHO) it’s no wonder our country has become a worldwide laughing stock.
To avoid any legal complications I will not make any insinuations about this gentleman’s relationship with what would normally be considered the truth. You can make up your own mind.
The things I found interesting were:
what this guy said
the total astonishment on Hartley-Brewer’s face at this guy’s ‘opinions’
some wonderful viewers’ comments you can read if you watch the video on YouTube
I recently did a blog about the ridiculous number of senior officers in the Royal Navy. I think it was 40 admirals, about 60 commodores and 250 captains for somewhere between 25 and 40 ships most of which were under repair most of the time.
I wonder if this ‘ambassador’ isn’t an exception, but rather is a typical example of our ruling elites. He is (IMEHO) arrogant, supercillious, deluded and dismissive of any other views than his own. Of course, that is just my worthless opinion. Quite probably you may find he is impressive, a towering intellect, a Rolls Royce brain and a credit to our once great country.
If you dare to watch the video, I suggest you make yourself a stiff gin and tonic first otherwise you might throw your laptop or iphone or whatever through the nearest window in fury.
As I read about how Ayatollah Starmer is struggling to find just one working Royal Navy ship to send to the Middle East to help protect the British airbase on Cyprus, I remembered a chart I used in a blog I wrote in 2015. It shows the number of ranks in the RAF and Royal Navy:
In 1939, the Royal Navy had 367 fighting ships, around 200,000 sailors and 53 admirals. That’s one admiral for every 3,773 sailors. In 2025, the Royal Navy has 25 warships (many of which are actually out of action being refitted or just lacking sufficient crew), 32,225 sailors (including reserves) and 40 admirals. That’s one admiral for every 805 sailors. I realise that today’s warships probably require fewer crew than ships in 1939. But applying 1939’s figures, we would only need around nine admirals for our much-shrunken navy, rather than the 40 we actually have.
Our 40 admirals are also rather expensive:
3 full Admirals – salary £165,284 to £185,000
27 lowest rank of Rear Admiral – salary £108,201 to £119,000
10 Vice Admirals – salary £125,908 to £152,000
Moreover, the Royal Navy also has 63 commodores. I’m not a military man so have little knowledge of what the Royal Navy’s different ranks do. But I assume that captains are generally those in charge of ships. Incidentally, the Royal Navy has around 260 captains for its 25 warships. So, in one of my more cynical moments, I might be tempted to wonder what most of the Royal Navy’s 40 admirals and 63 commodores and 260 captains actually do all day.
Is the Royal Navy beyond satire?
Here’s how one YouTube satirist viewed Britain’s pathetic attempts to find just one seaworthy ship to send to the Middle East:
And here’s President Trump ‘thanking’ Ayatollah Keir Al-Coward Starmer for Britain’s support:
Unemployment in the UK rose to its highest rate in nearly five years at the end of 2025, official figures show. The unemployment rate climbed to 5.2% in the three months to December, from 5.1% in the three months to November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
But young people are bearing the brunt, with unemployment for those aged between 16 and 24 rising to 16.1%, its highest in more than 10 years.
Apparently, this is the first time youth unemployment in Britain is above the EU average.
The BBC goes on to explain why youth unemployment has risen to record levels:
Many businesses have slowed hiring, pointing to measures in Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s last two Budgets, including a hike in employer National Insurance contributions and a rise in the minimum wage, as increasing their costs.
Labour’s response has been the usual bureaucratic nonsense:
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said there was “more to do to get people into jobs”, with tackling youth unemployment a key government priority. He added Labour was making it easier for young people to find and secure an apprenticeship.
Dear Mr McFadden – if Labour are “making it easier for young people to find and secure an apprenticeship” why is youth unemployment shooting up and up and up?
Give it to them hard!
Satirist H. L. Mencken is quoted as saying:
Well, many young people will have voted Labour at the last election – a party that loathes Britain, hates and distrusts business, wants to crush successful people with punitive taxes, wants to bankrupt the country with massive unrepayable borrowing, wants to replace the White British population with mainly useless and often criminal benefits-scrounging Third-worlders and wants to destroy as many British companies as possible with the highest energy prices in the world.
Moreover, flame-haired rubinesque temptress Angela Rayner’s new employees rights legislation will make it too risky to hire someone. After all, if a pub landlord or retailer can be sued by their staff if they hear customers saying anything they find upsetting, who is going to risk hiring a hypersensitive, ultra-woke, tik-tok-obsessed GenZer just looking for a ‘micro-aggression’ to score a massive payout?
And, of course, the businesses which are collapsing – manufacturing, hospitality and retail – are often those where most young people get a start in their working lives.
The result – thousands of businesses closing, hundreds of thousands losing their jobs and an economy which has been in recession for months. I know the shambolic anti-British Labour government still claims the UK economy is growing. But as I have shown on a previous blog, that’s just an illusion created by Britain borrowing billions and spaffing it on huge pay rises for the public sector and generous increases in benefits for millions of skivers.
So, young people. You’re getting what you voted for and you’re getting it hard.
Enjoy!
Votes for 16- and 17-year-olds?
One of the key promises in the 2024 Labour election manifesto was to extend the voting age allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. This must have seemed like an awfully good idea at the time. After all, very few young people were likely to vote for the Tories or Reform. Some might vote LibDem, but many would vote Labour thus ensuring Labour could gerrymander another election victory.
But, then came a more than minor problem – the massive rise in popularity of the Greens under the leadership of gap-toothed psychic boob-enhancer and media wonder David Paulden (who changed his name to Zack Polanski).
Labour’s strategy of lowering the voting age was to fight off any threat from the Right. But now the Greens represent a massive threat from the Left. Given this huge shift in Britain’s political landscape, will Labour still risk lowering the voting age? Or will Labour do another Starmeresque volte face and find some excuse for delaying the change?
I await the result with bated breath.
More Internet satirical genius
And to end, here’s a message from our real Prime Minister:
I understand the old press dictum “If it bleeds, it leads“. If a story is full of blood, guts and frightening bad news, then it will be the main story as it will get the most readers. Of course, this also applies to the Internet and blogs and YouTube videos. After all, more people are likely to read or click on “World War 3 starts – we are all doomed” than on a title like “Everything fine in most of the world – have a nice day”.
And when you ally this tendency to always present the negative side of any event with the fact that much of the media is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, you have a recipe for only doom-gloom-disaster stories.
Iran – despair or hope?
We can see this with the current situation in Iran. Article after article and blog after blog and video after video warn us that the attack on Iran will lead to some or all of the following:
replacement of Ayatoilet Khameni with an even more extreme bearded loony
Iran’s determination to aqcuire a nuclear weapon (from Russia or, more likely, North Korea)
massive rise in energy costs
worldwide recession
civil war in Iran
worldwide terror attacks by Iranian proxies
huge Middle East war
World War 3
and much more of that ilk
And, of course, we’re regularly informed that Trump is a blundering idiot and has no exit plan. After all, that’s what towering international statesman Mr Starmer is reported as having said. So it must be true.
Trump – one of the US’s greatest presidents?
I have already blogged about how, being a businessman, Trump analyses situations and makes decisions in a completely different way from traditional politicians. We can see this by comparing the catastrophic Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq with how Trump brought Venezuela under US control just by arresting one person and making clear to Maduro’s successor that they would be toast unless they agreed to US demands. Moreover, Trump achieved a ‘buy-one-get-one free’ as extracting Maduro and getting Venezuelan oil will probably lead to the collapse of Cuba. It’s a pity that Bush/Blair didn’t think of doing something similar in Iraq as that would have saved many thousands of lives. Of course, Trump’s approach didn’t lead to the ‘perfect’ outcome – a democratic Venezuela. But a business man is usually looking for an achievable outcome with the minimum cost rather than risking disaster to try to get perfection.
It’s now up to the Iranians
Moreover, we’re told that Trump has no exit plan. That’s rubbish. Trump has made it clear he has four main objectives – destruction of IRGC military capacity, the Iranian navy, Iran’s ballistic missiles and Iran’s nuclear weapons work. That’s it. It’s then up to Iranians if they want to change their government.
The IRGC has about 135,000 troops. Though that number may now hopefully be lower. The population of Iran is about 90 million and most Iranian men will have done 12-24 months military service. So they will know how to handle guns. Instead of jumping up and down screaming about their ‘snackbar’, these men should get organised, over-run a few police stations to get basic weapons, then start attacking IRGC military bases to get more weapons and thus start a real revolution while Trump has given them the opportunity. Sadly, if the millions of military-trained Iranian men fail to act now, then they have brought their future subjugation and destruction on themselves.
Now let’s look on the bright side
While bleating about all the possible negative outcomes from the Iran attack, I don’t think too many commentators and experts and self-appointed ‘experts’ and other people riding the apparently lucrative doom-gloom-disaster gravy train have focused on the positives:
possibly ridding the world of one of the most dangerous and oppressive regimes
removing a major sponsor of terrorism
bringing Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves back onto the international market
a fall in energy costs leading to a worldwide economic boom
peace in the Middle East with Israel and a future less extreme Iranian government becoming allies
huge cooperation deals between Western countries and Iran to help Iran rebuild its infrastructure after 47 years of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence
disarming and defanging Islamist militias across the Middle East
Lebanon taking control of its own country and emerging from being a failed state
further isolation of Putin’s Russia hopefully contributing to Russia’s decision to depose Putin and stop its catastrophic Ukraine war
Starmer’s Islamic Republic of Britanistan being the only country in the world still exporting Islamic terrorism
I’m sure you could add to the list. But you can’t as there’s some security function now on my website blocking comments. In fact, some days I even struggle to get on to my own website.
Anyway, given how many positives could come from the US/Israel action, it’s a pity that so many commentators choose to never look at the bright side of life.
Another brilliant AI video
To cheer us all up, here’s another brilliant satirical AI YouTube video. Take it away Ayatollah Andrew:
David Craig, on March 23rd, 2026
