The Danger

of the


The Danger of the Far-Left

August 2020

The problem with socialism is that if you speak up against it you are perceived as a monster. Socialists always believe they sit on the moral high ground. At first it would appear they are right and everyone else is wrong because who would argue against helping the blind, the elderly and those in need? No one, of course. The problem is that they don't know when to stop.

There are numerous examples but let's take a closer look at a few.


As of September 2018 there were 168,000 registered charities in the UK. I'm all for doing a bit of good, but 168,000 is a joke and shows it's totally out of control - that's 1 charity for every 400 people. Many charities are nothing more than a racket to make senior managers wealthy while at the same exploiting the good intentions of poorly paid and volunteer workers.

I believe that charity begins at home and don't have a problem with helping those in your own community and country before those abroad.

Politicians such as Gordon Brown ensured he kept millions of his own British people in a state of persistent poverty when he tied the UK Foreign Aid budget to 0.7% of GDP. In 2019 this equated to the UK giving away of the order of £15billion or £476/second to complete strangers abroad, many in Africa. Just so there is no confusion about the size of give away it is equal to £15,000,000,000. You could walk up to 15,000 people and give them £1million or equally walk up to 1million old age pensioners and give them £15,000.

Charities in Britain would have started out life predominantly helping British people and have now grown to such an extent that they help more those outside the UK than those inside the UK. In addition to State funding of £15billion/year in Foreign Aid, £3.8 billion/year into the United Nations, pre-Brexit £15billion/year EU fund, £4billion over 10 year contracts to Serco/Mears to house illegal immigrants, then there are charities as Oxfam and the Red Cross:

  • In 2018/19 Oxfam GB's gross income was £434million.

  • In 2017/18 British Red Cross Society's total income was £284million.

all helping those abroad before those at home.

Shown below is promotional material produced by the British Red Cross to help raise money for refugees relocate in the UK. The shit idea being that for each mile you run you think of the distance a refugee has travelled [by bus or in a dinghy] to make it to the UK.

2020 promotional material by the British Red Cross to encourage you to go out running in September to help raise money to relocate refugees in the UK.

The UK now has around 1,000 charities assisting illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees; refer to British Charities Assisting the Replacement Migration.

Foreign Aid, Illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees are costing the UK economy of the order of £23billion/year; for further details refer to Immigrants - Some Facts.

Illegal Immigrants

The 2020 illegal immigrant invasion is a beautiful example of the far-left ideology that the UK could in some way house the world's poor migrants. Consider the following two Figures extracted from Migration Watch:

What starts out as a few hundred illegal immigrants being picked up by Border Force in 2018 quickly turns into thousands in 2020. Why? Because their migration to the UK was encouraged and "welcomed" by all sorts of left-wing groups.

The article Illegal immigrants in Hotels - A Trackrecord illustrates that the UK Home Office has been placing thousands of illegal immigrants in hotels across the UK for several years. In 2020 this morally bankrupt policy came to a head with the Illegal Immigrant Invasion. Eventually, the British people began to gain a grasp of the scale of the far-left rottenness. The detention centres were full. The private housing acquired by the Home Office to place them in was full. The 50+ hotels used to place illegals were full. And when you thought it couldn't get any worse, councils such as Bristol actually had the nerve to ask people if they could put up asylum-seekers up their own homes so they wouldn't have to sleep on the streets. As they say - you couldn't make it up!

The lives of complete strangers were being assigned assigned greater precedence that the UK's own ex-servicemen and homeless sleeping rough and in need of help. In 2019 there were an estimated 3.3 million people living in persistent poverty including the elderly and illegal immigrants were being housed in £150/night hotels with their own en-suite, 3 meals a day, free laundry service, etc - seriously and read about it for yourself here.

The UK now has around 1,000 charities raising more than £1.2billion/year all working to help those who want to migrate to the UK; refer to British Charities Assisting the Replacement Migration.

The far-left is literally a danger to a society's indigenous people.

The LGBTQ+ - Mathematical Symbol Group

Homosexuality was legalised in the UK in 1967 in the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Fair enough you might say. Civil partnerships were made legal in the 2004 Civil Partnership Act. Fair enough you might think. The problem is they don't know when to stop. Same-sex couples are now legally entitled to adopt and foster children. Not everyone agrees with this. And what about homosexual couples purchasing children via a surrogate mother? Not content with the biological fact that two men cannot reproduce a child and not content even with adoption and fostering, they want their cake and eat it via paying a surrogate mother to produce children for them. One of the better known instances of this is Elton Hercules John and partner David Furnish:

Elton Hercules John (Reginald Kenneth Dwight) with husband (David Furnish) and purchased children.

I assume the children were purchased from a surrogate mother because I know they didn't produce them but if the children were acquired in a non-purchased transaction then I stand corrected.

Who would have predicted that back in 1967 and 2004?

And what about the case of Tyler Fontes and Andy Fontes with their purchased twins? Now bear with me as I attempt to describe this! The same-sex homosexual couple are parents to twin boys [Caellum and Emmerich], who are also biological half brothers. With me so far? The twins were carried by Andy's cousin, who served as the surrogate mother, and were born at the same time on the 16th of June 2017. Still with me? However they are also half brothers as their embryos were created using eggs from the same donor but sperm from each father, meaning that one son is biologically Tyler's and the other is biologically Andy's. Here's a photo of the loving couple with "their" newly born twins:

Tyler Fontes and Andy Fontes with their purchased twins.

I assume the children were purchased from a surrogate mother because I know they didn't produce them but if the children were acquired in a non-purchased transaction then I stand corrected.

Some people just don't know when to stop. In their eyes this is perfectly acceptable but as far as many heterosexual people are concerned this is very disturbing. Does a newborn baby not have a fundamental right to at least have the chance to have a natural mother and father? Clearly, some people and governments around the world believe not.

On the 10th of August 2020 a group calling themselves LGBT+ Labour posted the following letter on Twitter:

LGBT + Labour

Twitter post, 10th of August 2020

The letter begins by stating ".... would like to express our deep disappointment in the actions of Rosie Duffield ...". My - this sounds ominous - I can hardly bring myself to continue reading! Could it be she abused someone? Did she torture another person? Has she murdered anyone? What could it be? Let's continue with our reading "... claimed "only women have a cervix" ...". Is that it?

Let's look at the definition of cervix on Wikipedia:

"The cervix or cervix uteri (Latin, 'neck of the uterus') is the lower part of the uterus in the human female reproductive system."

So what is wrong with what was stated that only women/female have a cervix? It is a biological fact, because as we know Wikipedia is always right.

So what's their gripe? Seems to be ".... ignores both trans men and numerous non-binary people's existence ...". Right - I don't know about you but this new post-1967 language always confuses and I need to do a bit of google-ing to make sure I've got things right. ... I'm back - a "trans man" is a female-to-male transsexual. A non-binary person is, according to Wikipeida:

"Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary, or abbreviated enby) or genderqueer is a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities that are outside the gender binary. Non-binary identities can fall under the transgender umbrella, since many non-binary people identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex.

Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (being bigender or trigender); having no gender (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid); being third gender or other-gendered (a category that includes those who do not place a name to their gender)."

What the fuck! Seriously, if anyone thinks I'm going to waste my time trying to get my mind round this shit they've another thing coming. And this is a key point of this article - just look at the above definition. It is gobbledegook. It's as if it is thought up in such a way so as to confuse the normal heterosexual person - the majority. What started off in 1967 with the legalisation of homosexuality has now reached a point in which it takes 2 entire paragraphs to attempt to describe what is meant by a non-binary person. They just don't know when to stop.

Anyway, let's get back to "trans men" and "non binary people's existence". A "trans man" is a a female-to-male transsexual - I do hope the words male and female are considered acceptable. And a "non binary person" is, if I've got this right, a person who is neither male or female, although they could biologically speaking, be but subsequently have a different biological sex assigned to them or they self-identify with a different sex/gender/thingy from birth ... ah fuck it - I hope you understand this better than me. And I gather that the case the group LGBT+Labour want to make is that Rosie Duffield's claim "only women have a cervix" is offensive in some way to these groups of people - can we call them people? Well, all I can say is that if this is the future of the human race it is totally screwed as it self-consumes itself in political correctness.