I hope you’re ready for Rishi.

Because even assuming you’re not ready, you’re now being Rishi’d out like a filthy slut.

NBC News:

Former Finance Minister Rishi Sunak won the race to be Britain’s next prime minister on Monday, the first British Asian to assume the role and the third leader in seven weeks of a country roiled by political and economic chaos.

Sunak will become the latest leader of the ruling Conservative Party to enter the revolving door of No. 10 Downing St., following Liz Truss’ resignation just 44 days after taking office. Her scandal-plagued predecessor, Boris Johnson, dropped his bid for a comeback Sunday.

In his first public statement after the results were announced, Sunak said the country faces a “profound economic challenge.”

He went on to pledge to work for “stability and unity,” and added that he would make it his “utmost priority” to unite the party and the country.

Sunak’s victory was confirmed after his only other challenger, Penny Mordaunt, failed to secure the support of enough of her fellow lawmakers before the deadline.

This whole situation has gotten utterly ridiculous.

What right do these foreigners have to run our governments?

This started out with “oh, we should be nice to brown people” and very quickly escalated into “bow down to your new brown master.”

There is no justification. British people have lived on the British Isles for thousands of years, and they have a right to run their own government.

But hey – being dominated by a foreign male is about .0001% as humiliating as being dominated by your own women. So there’s that.

Why not just sanction Pakistan along with them, Rishi?

RT:

UK Conservative Party leadership candidate Rishi Sunak on Sunday called for a tightening of sanctions against Iran in response to the recent attack on novelist Salman Rushdie.

The Indian-born British-American writer was stabbed on Friday in New York State as he was preparing to give a lecture. A possible cause for the assault could have been his 1988 novel ‘The Satanic Verses’, which was condemned by Muslims for its allegedly blasphemous references to Islam and its holy book, the Koran. In 1989, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death, and while Iran officially retracted this edict, an Iranian religious foundation placed a $3.3 million bounty on the writer’s head in 2012.

According to Sunak, the “brutal stabbing” of Rushdie should serve as “a wake-up call for the West” that should prompt Britain to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an influential branch of the Iranian Armed Forces, a terrorist organization. The IRGC is already deemed as such by the US and a number of other countries.

Jews invented this concept of foreigners manipulating white governments for their own ethnic purposes, but they seem to now allow others to do it too.

You all remember the meme:

Italians couldn’t get away with it, but Indians can.

Rishi is campaigning on starting a war with China, which is a traditional enemy of India, now he’s defending this Indian novelist who attacked Islam and demanding sanctions.

How far off are we from him demanding an increase in foreign aid to India?

Some Indians are okay, I’m not even against them as a group. But this concept of allowing foreign nationals to run your government is just obviously nothing that anyone would ever want to happen.

Indians complained about the British running their government, but at least the British built buildings and roads and so on. What is the difference between Indians running the British government and British running the Indian government, in a moral sense?

Because Rishi considers himself “British”?

Rudyard Kipling considered India his home.

Kipling wrote of Bombay:

Mother of Cities to me,
For I was born in her gate,
Between the palms and the sea,
Where the world-end steamers wait.

He was born in India. Many or even most people who worked in the colonial government of India were born there. Look at this list on Wikipedia. Kipling loved India and moved back from the UK.

But Western society has agreed, apparently, that colonialism was morally wrong, and India is given as the standard example. So why are Indians allowed to colonize the UK and run the government? What is the actual difference here?

Even if we were to accept this theory that “race doesn’t exist,” the fact that Rishi’s interests line up completely with his ethnicity can’t be some kind of coincidence.

It’s just crazy to me that we’re at the point where we’re talking about an Indian being the prime minister of the UK.

Frankly, I think Indian nationalists would agree with this sentiment in theory (though I assume they also want the global power and influence).

What makes this bitch think that even the Jews would want her free blowjobs?

RT:

The British foreign secretary and the Conservative Party leadership favorite, Liz Truss, has earned a scathing rebuke from the FDA union representing senior civil and public servants, after she vowed to “protect British Jewry” from “creeping antisemitism” and “woke culture” in the civil service. The FDA general secretary, Dave Penman, called her remarks “insulting” and showing “a lack of leadership.”

“The Conservatives have been in government for more than 12 years now and, for most of that time, Liz Truss has been a minister. So, accusations of ‘civil service wokeism’ are a little ironic, given it’s essentially a criticism of their own leadership,” Penman told the British media on Friday, adding that Truss’ remarks go “further than the usual dog-whistle politics” and many civil servants find them “both insulting and abhorrent.”

Haha.

Vowing to defend Jews is “insulting and abhorrent.”

Based.

Truss is currently running against former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak to succeed Boris Johnson as party leader and prime minister of the UK. Last week, she was reportedly polling 26 points ahead of her competitor. Yet, according to Penman, her recent statements show she might not exactly fit the job.

“A prime minister is also minister for the civil service,” he said, adding that leveling “unfounded inflammatory accusations” demonstrates a lack of leadership. Such harsh criticism has been sparked by a written statement Truss made following her speech at a Manchester synagogue. There, she blasted the “woke” civil service culture that supposedly “strays into anti-Semitism” while praising the “Jewish values” she said were “Conservative values and British values too.”

lol

I don’t even understand what this means. They’re saying that the Jews are woke so saying you’re against woke is anti-Semitic? Or is it just anti-Semitic to say you’re going to defend Jews?

“Every organization has its culture, but it’s not fixed, it can be changed,” she said in the statement. Truss also vowed to check if schools are doing enough to educate students and teachers about anti-Semitism and said that universities should be “ridded” of that issue as well, according to her team. According to Penman, though, the foreign secretary failed to provide a single example of anti-Semitism among the civil servants.

Conversely, Rishi, who is a Pakistani and an Islamic radical, has vowed to “make mincemeat out of the eternal Jew parasite” and to “send the Royal Air Force to decimate Tel Aviv and liberate the Palestinian people.”

I’m just joking, actually. He didn’t say that and he’s not actually a Moslem. He’s from India and he is pumping his own ethnic interests by saying he’s going to start a war with China.

But if diversity was what they say it is, then why isn’t there a Pakistani running on a platform of starting a war with Israel? If an Indian is allowed to run on a platform of starting a war with China, then clearly, diversity allows foreigners to take over white governments and use them to settle their own ethnic scores.

So why, with all of these Moslems, do we not have a single person running on a “bomb Israel” platform?

The closest thing was Jeremy Corbyn vowing to “gas the kikes,” but he later said it was just a joke from 4chan.org.

He didn’t really say that, by the way.

But we should elect Corbyn, because he really does hate the Jews.

He’s also a literal communist, which is like, flipping hilarious.

I can’t really think of anything funnier than if Jeremy Corbyn became PM and went full killing fields Pol Pot and evacuated the cities the forced everyone to work on sheep farms in fields in Wales while also deploying the military against Israel.

Corbyn will be like, straight up shooting people for wearing glasses because they look too smart.

This would be epic, folks.

So.

So, it’s come to this.

We are now officially looking at a Pakistani leader of the UK.

Someone could say “yeah but the US had a black president all the way back in 2008!” But the comparison doesn’t work. Firstly, Barack Obama wasn’t “black,” he was a mulatto only raised by white people, due to having experienced “disappearing black father syndrome.”

Secondly, black people are actually American. Under slavery they were viewed as Americans, under Jim Crow they were viewed as Americans both by opponents and proponents of slavery and Jim Crow. There is no real argument that black people are not “Americans.”

There are arguments that black people should be rounded up and sent back to Africa, course, and those arguments may have some validity. There are also slightly less extreme arguments that even though black people are Americans, they do not represent the core American population, and therefore it is inappropriate to have a black person (or a mulatto) as the leader of America. That argument is not only valid, but one which I agree with entirely. Lots of countries have had ethnic minorities, and considered them equal under the law, but also not wanted them in positions of authority over the majority.

Whatever the case, I am definitely against a black president of America. (I might not be against blacks having their own, separate Black President, but that’s a whole other issue.)

Nonetheless, a black president of America is not comparable to a Pakistani Prime Minister of the UK. I can explain to you why America has black people, and again, I don’t think there is a real argument that they are “not American.” However, I don’t think anyone can explain why there are Pakistanis in the UK, or how it is possible for a Pakistani to be “British.”

Whereas black Americans were brought to America, and then completely immersed in American culture and have zero connection to Africa beyond their genetics, Pakistanis just showed up in the UK inexplicably, and continue to maintain a strict connection to their ethnic homeland.

Whereas a black president of America is a clear moral outrage and a true abomination, a Pakistani PM of the UK is reverse colonization, and a handing of control of the government over to a foreign power.

RT:

Former UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak says he will prioritize the issues of soaring prices and illegal migration if he is chosen in the Tory party leadership race and becomes Britain’s next prime minister, adding that he plans to put his government on a “crisis footing” from day one.

In a Friday interview with The Times, Sunak, a multimillionaire businessman, said he has spent his life “having to be tough to get results.” The recent scandal over his billionaire wife’s tax affairs only made him stronger, he added. “I’ve got the resilience to deal with some pretty tough stuff when it’s thrown at me, and I’ve got the energy and fight to keep going because I really believe in this.”

Commenting on his privileged background and the fact that he attended one of the most expensive private schools in the country, Winchester College, Sunak – also an Oxford and Stanford graduate – said that education helped change his life, and vowed “to make sure as many people as possible have the opportunity of a transformative education.”

Sunak stated that his priority as prime minister will be to contain inflation, which “has been consistently higher than people thought and has lasted longer.”

“So from day one of being in office I’m going to put us on a crisis footing.”

What does that mean?

I know what it means. But the phrasing makes it sound like he wants to cause a crisis.

I do these silly mind exercises sometimes, like, for example: what if a candidate ran on a platform of “creating crisis,” and the entire media said in unison (as they say everything): “we really need someone who can successfully create a crisis”?

Would people go around saying “I just want a leader who can cause real crises in order to get our country back on the right track”?

It would be less dumb than talking about viruses, windmills and Russia. There are tangible social and economic benefits to crises that go beyond the obvious political benefits. This has been said by political philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times. Right now, we have fake crises, which only have political benefits (and maybe economic benefits for the elite, though that is probably debatable). A real crisis could bring society together, cause people lose weight, get people working, strengthen marriages and other family bonds, and so on.

I would vote for someone who was like “enough with the fake crises – we need a real crisis to get this country back on track!”

Unless he was Pakistani. Then I definitely wouldn’t vote for him at all, under any circumstances.

I am not ready for Rishi.

The only way I’d vote for Rishi is if his campaign slogan was “Show Bobs,” and he was giving speeches like “So from day one of being in office I’m going to put us on a showing bobs footing.”

Or, of course, I’d vote for the Paki if the other option was some stupid bitch.

Ah.

Right.

So I guess it turns out I am ready for Rishi.

The hilarious part is that British people don’t even get to vote for their leader.

The truly sickening part about all of this is that the Queen of England has the absolute authority to ignore all of this noise and simply appoint Sargon of Akkad as Prime Minister.

Note: Please don’t tell me “he’s actually Indian.” I refuse to entertain these arguments.