Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".
While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".
One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".
Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."
TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.
"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.
Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."
Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."
"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.
Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".
The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".
It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.
The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
This doesn't make sense because the conservatives would have stopped it if it was just a power play to get voters for labour. Every political party is pro replacement and know the Muslims will form their own political system and take over the nation if enough of them arrive.
Thats why I said earlier that the voting bloc theory doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. For the exact reasons you've stated. Its either patently false or New Labour pulled the most retarded move in politics since agreeing to Lend Lease.
Thats why I said earlier that the voting bloc theory doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. For the exact reasons you've stated. Its either patently false or New Labour pulled the most retarded move in politics since agreeing to Lend Lease.
They assumed that their new pets would forever be yes massuh-ing and doing as they were told by the enlightened Fabianists.
The same neo-lib delusion seen in every western intervention since about 1950, the wogs are very grateful for whiteys intervention and assistance right up until the point they cut your throat and throw you in mass grave alongside all the political enemies you were fine with them giving the same treatment to.
At a further statement about jeet and pakis at unis a lot of medicine students are jeets and pakis. They used to be able to bring over family at some point. They basically abused that avenue to sneak in their family as dependents. I think this is post-university on their visa after, but I know students were able to abuse it to some extent too.
They assumed that their new pets would forever be yes massuh-ing and doing as they were told by the enlightened Fabianists.
The same neo-lib delusion seen in every western intervention since about 1950, the wogs are very grateful for whiteys intervention and assistance right up until the point they cut your throat and throw you in mass grave alongside all the political enemies you were fine with them giving the same treatment to.
I'm a big advocate for Hanlon's razor, but when you see how widespread this amongst White nations even I find it hard to put it all down to retardation sometimes.
At the very least we should be putting think tanks in the woodchipper too.
My theory is that it is a deliberate attempt to degenerate the population into a sub-100 iq heterogeneous mass that will be so divided against itself it could never turn against it's 105 iq masters, so they can rule in peace for the rest of their days.
It's not any single motivation for the entire group. Some of them are indeed seeking to replace the natives with what they believe will be a more compliant population (some of them openly despise their own people to the point of wanting them genocided). Some of them bring in migrants as a guaranteed voting block. Some of them (likely most of them) believe that constant GDP growth is a law of nature, thanks to the near-constant growth of the 20th century; absent innovation, constant GDP growth requires constant population growth. Some of them are operating on a simplistic model of "it takes 20 tax-free years to grow a worker, but if we import one that was already trained by another country, then we get the immediate tax benefit without any of the educational expense".
All of them subscribe to the belief that all humans are equal in every way and only differ in culture and behaviour due to wealth disparity and magic dirt. Transport an Indian to Edinburgh and dress him in a kilt, the belief goes, and you'll get a Scot with brown skin. It appears to work in small numbers (a small immigrant population will indeed tend to assimilate and eventually breed out), so they think it will also work at scale. Combined with all of the prior motivations, we get to where we are today: A lot of stupid people acting in concert to dump waves of human detritus in their home nations, because they grew up with the post-war dividend and the fantasy of humans as tabula rasa.
Interesting that a week on Wednesday sees Nigel visiting the US Congress to talk about free speech.
Apparently, not even Labour MP's have gotten as far as to address Congress. They're the Government as well, but when the leader of a minor party who are scoring well in the polls gets that sort of invite...
Donald's also visiting next month - got the feeling he'll tell Starmer 'actually no, I don't support you.'
The outcome they will have is sectarian violence in every western country. This is the conclusion I have come to. The reason for allowing this to become even a thing are irrelevant and it's a waste of your time to figure out why, you just need to know that they're at best apathetic to you and will cause large amounts of harm and you should act accordingly to that.
A friend of mine from the states, who as a huge anglophile, went to the UK with a friend of hers and they had pakis harassing and follow them all over London.
Now they associate the UK with predators and are now Koreaboos because when they went to South Korea, they were not stalked or harassed by brown rapists.
This doesn't make sense because the conservatives would have stopped it if it was just a power play to get voters for labour. Every political party is pro replacement and know the Muslims will form their own political system and take over the nation if enough of them arrive.
If it were pure stupidity, it'd result in the people of the UK being benefited. Even just slightly, even just a few times through sheer random chance. I am forced by Occam's Razor to assume that it is just that they hate us and want us all to die.
Women. Have you never been to a TK Maxx with a woman? They will look at all the tat and drool like you seeing your first pair of tits. They can't resist it.
Holiday displays are another female competition to show how, much better of a homemaker you are or nurturing parent etc. The Halloween tat is particularly disturbing looking because it's "spooky" but Christmas gives it some competition.
You find something decent at a reduced price at TK Maxx once, you get a taste. Then it's the thrill of the hunt. Or like gambling. Candles get me every time.
This is pure behavioural insights. ‘Devastated.’ ‘The roundabout on my town.’ Like there’s a dedicated town roundabout. This is a temperature taking thread, where a ‘hello fellow kids, I too am a humble mummy’ type is gauging reaction.
Only read a few pages of comments but plenty of ‘fuck off’ type sentiment.
Encouraging. Statistics will be being run on this thread to see what kind of responses it gets
The outcome they will have is sectarian violence in every western country. This is the conclusion I have come to. The reason for allowing this to become even a thing are irrelevant and it's a waste of your time to figure out why, you just need to know that they're at best apathetic to you and will cause large amounts of harm and you should act accordingly to that.
Don't tell anyone, but there's not actually any such thing as "international law". Say we were to round up every last Boriswaver tomorrow and kick them out of Herky birds on parachute equipped pallets over Africa, which international police would stop us?
Acceptance of the detritus of the third world is absolutely a positive choice of the political class for the last 40 years, but it needn't be.
I asked this very same question to a Wokey Dopey a few years back... still have the answer stored away:
'So, if the UK did try and do this with Farage as PM, they would immediately fall foul of international law and the UN would send its army along with the EU army to overthrow Farage by any means.
'This would mean that anybody who supported him would be a terrorist and would be tried as a traitor and receive an appropriate punishment.
'Once a stable Coalition Government has been created from the chaos, then we would be free of Farage and his fascist supporters and we'd immediately rejoin the EU as a condition of ending the war.'
I asked this very same question to a Wokey Dopey a few years back... still have the answer stored away:
'So, if the UK did try and do this with Farage as PM, they would immediately fall foul of international law and the UN would send its army along with the EU army to overthrow Farage by any means.
'This would mean that anybody who supported him would be a terrorist and would be tried as a traitor and receive an appropriate punishment.
'Once a stable Coalition Government has been created from the chaos, then we would be free of Farage and his fascist supporters and we'd immediately rejoin the EU as a condition of ending the war.'
I long for an attempt at occupying the UK by hostile blue helmets, a military powerhouse who's chief weapons are cholera and rape. Your wokey mate doesn't seem to realise that in the meantime, they would be getting treated as a likely traitor and throw in camps at best.
I long for an attempt at occupying the UK by hostile blue helmets, a military powerhouse who's chief weapons are cholera and rape. Your wokey mate doesn't seem to realise that in the meantime, they would be getting treated as a likely traitor and throw in camps at best.
I hope they try to make the English flag into a symbol of racism. It's already an implicit thing that they view it as such, but if it becomes the open message of the Left and some of their politicians there's no real way to spin that rhetoric other than it being a direct attack on the English.
Pensions are the reason the Western nations are engaging in this suicidal demographic replacement, there'll always be an ever-increasing number of pensioners and thus, there needs to be an ever-increasing young worker demographic to foot the bill - but fertility doesn't keep pace so they do this mass migration under the mistaken belief migrants become tax positive quickly, when we've been repeatedly shown that isn't true.
No party will ever do the suicidal optics of cutting state pensions even when it's clearly the albatross strangling us around the neck, the line must always go up, never down.
I've always thought the issue was more complex than that. You can see the dominoes of the West's reaction to shit in the 70s/80s that was done to fix things in the short-term but we're now paying for in the long, be it bloated budgets, piss-poor products, irritant immigrants, and alike.
I might be me committing the genetic or slippery slope fallacies but you can attribute shit done in reactions to problems 50 years ago to today, and whilst I'm only thinking of the UK and the USA so it might not apply universally, you can see how one thing lead to the other.
Deng opens up China -> industries offshore on mass there (fiduciary responsibility) -> mass unemployment in West (steel manufacturers leave UK - and Europe by and large - thus decreasing private demand for coal, iron, leading to mine closures) -> discontent, civil unrest, and general suffering follow -> government tries two-fold to: (1) help the people financially, often through increasing welfare or lowering taxes, and (2) provide incentives for job-creators and manufacturers to return/remain, either through cutting regulation, decreasing tax, helping to reduce overheads through other means, and keeping GDP growth positive to look worthwhile for investment -> through actions made to help people in the short-term they were left a ticking time bomb of responsibilities and expectations that had to be met, which immigration was the easiest to answer with.
One larger factor in the government's response is the dogma of Keynesian economics, and the inability of modern governments to abandon it. One factor in Keynesian economics is the idea that when demand is higher, productivity will spur companies to meet it, requiring more workers to increase production and due to their importance in meeting demand their individual value will increase thus giving them higher wages which'll further feed demand and so on. That's just one aspect of it but already you can see that trying to increase domestic demand is viewed as pretty integral to the whole deal. Keynes also thought it'd be necessary for the government to temporarily cover people's needs until jobs become available again during periods of high unemployment, and the problem would eventually correct itself when demand was high.
What Keynes didn't consider is that (a) production doesn't need to be domestic so new jobs don't have to become available for locals and (b) if technologies allow for more efficient production in the future then the requirement to create jobs for people to fill won't be necessary. So effectively we're stuck using an economic theory suited for the world in post-depression, NHS-less 1936 that emphasised domestic demand creating domestic jobs, in a period where manufacturing jobs mostly end up in China and service/office jobs are now capable of being done remotely by some Indian abroad, and because it posits the issue will be self-correcting with enough demand. Mass immigration will eventually yield dividends whilst they spend out the ass to cover for the unemployed which they are contributing to with mass immigration because it'll fix itself eventually... somehow.
"Keynesian economics has never been tried" is a statement you could probably make pertaining to the 80/90s response to the mass unemployment of the time. The economy was cynical according to Keynes, demanding the government change its reaction from one to the other. Thatcher's reaction was to a bad turn, then Labour was supposed to react accordingly during a good turn, however instead of deficit spending they increased the deficit so when a bad turn came back around in 2008 they just made a bad situation worse. Tories came to power and reacted to the bad turn but then after Cameron we've effectively been imitating Blair and Brown during the good turn and just acting as though there's no need to adjust.
And with all that, there's still a bunch of other factors that go into why it's still being adhered to, why companies have contradicting goals in supporting immigration to those of the population (usually because companies are no longer owned domestically but internationally), the prisoner's dilemma the globalised economy is in (that everyone already lost because China took the bag and ran), and the need to justify immense spending because nobody wants to make any hard choices.
I reckon if we didn't have upwards of 10 million foreigners here, we'd unironically being going through a boom.
For job creators, companies, and the every unassailable Keynesian economy:
(1) A Pakistani spending GBP in the UK is a more profitable customer than a Pakistani spending Rs in Pakistan (£1.29 for 500ml bottle of coke in UK vs Rs 105 (£0.89) - Coke have to lower their price to be more competitive with the local Amrat Cola) so increasing the consumer market size in the UK preferable from a purely cynical lens. The fact we also have a generous benefits system also means even the unemployed who make 0 income are more than viable to remain active consumer. Working, not working, this gives effectively perpetual and ever-increasing consumer demand that makes even foreign scroungers have an indirect cost-to-benefit ratio on the economy. £1.29 is spent on a bottle of Coke, 22p goes to the government in the form of VAT, 12p from the sugar levy, 95p goes to Coke meaning net the government gets 34p off of every £1.29 500ml bottle of Coke sold. And indirectly the more Cokes sold, the higher Coke's revenues, meaning more paid in corporation tax, and so on. Through indirect taxation an immigrant being provided for provides a somewhat marginal benefit that allows certain figures to cope about their overall burden not being as high as it actually is.
(2) Immigration brings more spenders regardless of whether they generate income or siphon it from everyone else. Spenders move money, and the movement indicates an active economy, one which makes it appealing to invest in because some of that money could potentially move into your hands. This also improves GDP, which factors into borrowing since countries with a higher GDP generally can borrow more, as a larger economy implies the ability to generate sufficient enough tax revenue to repay the debt. Companies do this in real life, going into debt to buy back their own stock to further increase their company's value, because so long as interest payments are manageable they meet their growth targets. Debt-to-GDP ratio acts as the soft cap to remain under, so the higher the GDP, the higher the cap, the more that can be borrowed; politicians typically use the ability to borrow more to spend more which is the norm nowadays to remain politically competitive. The lesson learned from Thatcher's success wasn't to be wise with the economy, it was that giving people more money - even if it's just having them spent less of it - is how you win an election. So you either reduce taxes (no longer possible - Truss tried RIP) or you increase spending and borrow to do so.
(3) Devaluing the worker. When demand is high and supply is low, the value is high - that's a very basic tenet of price determination. This also applies to workers, and even if the individual cost of a worker is high, the company weighs up whether the value produced through hiring that worker makes up for that. They're also competing with other companies for the same limited selection of workers so they can't be stingy. In the 80s however a Chinese worker was cheap, plentiful, demanding for work, and there were few obstacles in the way to employ one - it made complete sense to relocate jobs there. A British worker saw their value in the global market plummet ("cheap Chinese crap" is a double-entendre here), alongside any other countries that abhorred sweatshop-like conditions, so financially speaking there was no real reason to not hire a Chinaman if you could. Immigration massively increases the supply of domestic workers thus lowering their individual value and cost, allowing market-set wages to be far lower and to justify the minimum wages set by the government. However China is the competitor here for workers, and they still outprice the British and Americans. Minimum wage, as originally introduced in the likes of France and the USA, acted as a floor, but oftentimes the competitive nature of hiring meant wages were often double the minimum. If minimum wage was abolished today and set by the market, you'd have to lower monthly wage to around £1700 a month to match the highest provincial minimum wage in China, not factoring in how regulation costs may impact it.
TLDR: More immigrants = lower wages = reduced overheads = more attractive to employ and operate domestically.
The entire West has fucked over its own people by competing with a country that doesn't ideologically believe in capitalism and/or the free market, treats it's people like shit to keep manufacturers tethered to it, and actively lies and cheats to maintain this advantage.
How helping people cost them:
(1) Taxes were lowered on individuals by Thatcher, and they were lowered still in subsequent governments. This is conceptually a good thing, people like paying less tax, having more money to spend. From Thatcher's brackets to today, we've gone from 60% to 45% of the highest earners, whilst lower brackets went from 30% to 20%, taking a ton of burden of paying our debt off the wealthiest to lesser incomes. We're paying the least amount of income tax in the past 100 years yet nobody is benefiting, not really. What happened is the burden and chafing of taxes gets worse and worse with inflation, rising cost of goods, indirect taxation like VAT, etcetera. The middle class feel this the most as they end up with less disposable income than the highest and lowest earners relative to the income they've earnt, and for a period they could bear the burden, but due to the politicisation of budgets and the adamant refusal to lower spending and inflation, we've been stuck in a 40 year rut.
Because enough people's income is being taken as is, immigrants are brought in as an attempt to lessen the overall burden, since by earning income and filling out the roster of taxpayers, it should decrease the amount needed to be borrowed to cover the budget, thus make inflation more manageable and give people more buying power. However for every 10 immigrants it's likely only 4 will be net contributors, so to get 10 actual tax payers you need to bring in 30 of them. Not a problem if 10 tax payers covers the overall burden of the net-negatives whilst also contributing to the deficit on top, but this stopped being the case as early as 2009 so for every 700k arrivals you're getting 200k contributors, if that, who do not cover the cost of the other 500k. And as mentioned before, the non-contributors were still viewed as a positive in an economic light because of consumer spending. This mindset was completely irresponsible, to put it lightly.
(2) Growth of wealth through assets. In the UK, about 40% of our individual wealth tied to real estate and properties (in Australia it's 70%, America 60%). The value of these properties is measured when factoring in things like median wealth. Through inflating the value of property assets via immigration creating a perceived demand, these values increase and with it, making that 2nd house you're holding onto for re-sale grow in value. It also increases wealth, so outside looking in at only the raw data, 35 million of our 70 million population have a total household wealth of 300k or above whilst the other half are below it. This also coupled with GDP, because of the knock-on effect property values have with rent.
Higher house prices = high average monthly mortgage payments.
Higher mortgage payments = higher ceiling for landlords to increase rents.
Higher mortgage payments + higher rents = higher GDP = higher ratio of GDP to debt = greater capability to borrow.
So long as average rents remain lower than the average mortgage payments, then they're still technically the more attractive option than buying a house. This incentivises landlords to keep a hold of their properties rather than putting it on the market where it no longer generates GDP growth until sold.
(3) There's a circular logic that comes with Keynesian economics argues that government spending isn't bad if it's contributing to demand of some sort. Demand = jobs = incomes = tax payers and money spenders - I explained the gist way above. This applies to social spending too. Spending so much on the NHS is good, and adding to its burden is good, since burden = demand. Creating demand for doctors which creates jobs to be filled by foreigners who are a still a net positive because taxes and adding to consumer demand. Apply this to every role and service in the NHS and medical supplies and whatnot, and you get a situation where spending tens of billions and adding onto the burden of our medical services is a positive actually.
TLDR: Fuck the government, offshoring, globalism, keynesian economics, immigrants, but most of all, fuck trannies (they're irrelevant I just thought they'd feel left out).
The idea that the UK invented globalism; and benefited from it, so therefore we cannot possibly control immigration is fundamentally retarded. The UK did not 'invent' globalisation, we did not pioneer it either.
What our "globalism" was, was tariff-free trade between different parts of our empire essentially. Mills in England could import cotton from India, which would be exported back out amongst the dominions for sale. It was a sort of self-sufficiency that Hitler literally creams himself over in Mein Kampf and what the Americans were already doing during their isolation following WW1.
Globalism is an attempt to imitate this system by allowing supply from wherever to meet demand wherever, to nobody's explicit benefit or demerit and all without or very low tariffs. The West fumbled and fucked it almost immediately because less than 10 years after implementing it implicitly (or deepening financial links between everybody to help this interconnectivity), a 3rd party came in from literally nowhere who doesn't believe in the free market and didn't believe in remaining neutral either and decided to smash their hands into the cake ruining it for everyone else. Subsequently Keynesian economics turned the lack of jobs into a perpetual doom cycle because artificially increasing demand was only resulting in more jobs for the Chinese (and now Indians), not the British, no matter how many people we flooded in to try and do so. The economic upturn in the 80s came about through tax cuts, massive corporate growth and increased fiscal spending to fuel demand but I've already sperged about that enough.
