Starmer And The Farmers (Or Whatever Happened To The Great Reset?)

It’s looking increasingly likely that a major confrontation is on the horizon between the Starmer Government and Britain’s farming industry. You would think that somewhere within the PR departments and outreach Quango’s, there would at least be a lone voice who whispers, hesitantly:

Wait, we’re already being likened to psychotic communists, maybe drop the anti farmer stuff?

But not a bit of it.

The controversy results from a new inheritance tax on farms worth over £1 Million. In theory, and I have to say this in the name of fairness, the new policies are designed to close a tax loophole used by the very wealthy to avoid paying their ‘‘fair share’’. British farmers had previously avoided inheritance tax under Agricultural Property Relief (APR) to enable a smooth transition of farmland across the generations, which guaranteed food security. However, multimillionaires (including Jeremy Clarkson) began buying up farmland for no other reason than to avoid inheritance tax. Clarkson highlighted that if the government wanted people as wealthy as he was to pay more tax, they could simply make him pay it rather than dish out a punishment beating to family farms.

Given that I recently penned an article on The Popularity of Clarkson’s Farm, I feel as if now is the moment to add an addendum: In his second year of farming, Jeremy Clarkson made a profit of just £244.

On The Popularity Of Clarkson's Farm

However, on paper and within the schematics of the state bureaucracy, Clarkson’s land would be worth millions of pounds. To get straight down to it, British farmers are asset-rich but cash-poor — they cannot afford to pay an extra 20% upon death.

This isn’t even to mention the inherent cruelty of imposing a tax on people for dying!

At least one farmer has already committed suicide in fear of further taxation and sheer exhaustion with the crushing regulatory burden being placed on the industry. Another year or so and the government’s incoming ‘‘Assisted Dying’’ legislation would have probably done it for him.

One can’t help but think of the grotesque and macabre short story I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream, which features a malicious AI system torturing its human subjects in the most hellish ways imaginable and preventing them from escaping through suicide. In the future, farmers will be fully aware that upon death, their children will be hit by grueling taxes they cannot afford while, in the present, being unable to secure the capital to ward off the inevitable because of already existing regulatory bloat.

Of course, the solution, which only the most ardent cynic would have foreseen, is for the farmers to begin selling their land to the myriad public/private partnerships beloved by elite technocrats. Clarkson, who is increasingly becoming a figurehead of the pro-farmer cause, was less forgiving, claiming:

“I’m becoming more and more convinced that Starmer and Reeves have a sinister plan.

“They want to carpet bomb our farmland with new towns for immigrants and net zero wind farms.

“But before they can do that, they have to ethnically cleanse the countryside of farmers.

“That’s why they had a Budget which makes farming nigh on impossible.”

Even if one were to be as charitable as possible and concede that there’s an enormous chasm of debt that needs to be brought under control, the British Government is still dedicating itself to expending massive amounts of political capital and threatening food security for the sake of £520 Million annually. In contrast, the government has pledged just short of £12 Billion on ‘‘UK aid and climate change’’ to foreign countries. That is to say, the British State could simply carve out 1/24th or 4.1% to avoid the entire sorry saga of a profoundly cruel and seemingly destructive policy!

Of course, we could reel off other "Big Ones," such as the £4 billion on housing refugees or the £3 billion extra and ongoing pledge to Ukraine. However, as Charlotte Gill has documented, the unending boondoggle of funds shoved into the gaping maw of Regime client groups leaves one speechless.

How about £847,202 on ‘‘Communication and Creativity: An Arts-Based Study Focusing on Marginalised East African Communities in Kenya, Uganda and the United Kingdom’’?

Or what about £814,847 for the ‘‘Mongolian Cosmopolitical Heritage: Tracing Divergent Healing Practices Across the Mongolian-Chinese Border’’?

Then there’s £700,000 on a Migration Museum, and even funds going to research into ‘‘gay pig masculinities’’ (Trust me, you don’t want to know!)

Seen from the perspective of the State prioritizing Mongolian Heritage studies over safeguarding easy access to food, Clarkson’s diatribe claiming farmers are being ‘‘ethnically cleansed’’ appears less hyperbolic and more a mere statement of intent on the part of the government.

Whatever Happened To The Great Reset?

In the aftermath of the COVID era, terms such as Great Reset, The WEF, and Agenda 2030 became low-status and a bit cringe-worthy. They denoted not so much a grand conspiracy headed by arch-villain Klaus Bloschwab but lowbrow paranoia peddled by Russell Brand—the daily grind of the Bitchute content mill. The trendy kids all moved on to become specialists in geopolitics, returned to talking about ‘‘them’’ or Elite Theory, and so on. Moreover, a grand digitized society running as a social credit system, surveilled by digital IDs, didn’t materialize, and many of us had to eat a dry chunk of a crow in their absence. We still aren’t eating bugs, we don’t live in pods, and neither do we ‘‘Own Nothing’’. Neither are we shackled to an endless round of vaccinations or World Health Organization shock troops locking us up in quarantine camps.

The Great Reset became a meme, and memes have a limited shelf life.

My own view was that, regardless of technocratic ambitions and Bill Gates’s investment portfolio, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine amounted to the end of Globalism and a return to geopolitical realities that confounded the dystopian dreams of Davos.

In the social media age, history becomes legend, legend becomes myth within five years, and things that should not be forgotten are lost. Often within a few news cycles, let alone years.

Nevertheless, questions can be asked about the general direction of travel in government policy since 2020 while bearing in mind that the stated goal of the Davos conspiracy was always set to the deadline of 2030, and we’re only in 2024.

The danger, of course, is that I open myself up to accusations that I’m attempting to resurrect a dead meme or that I’m ‘‘coping.’’ but the fact remains that the British Government isn’t behaving honestly or rationally. Still, neither are the Regimes in neighbouring countries such as the Irish Republic, Germany, or France.

Britain and Ireland are now subject to unprecedented levels of immigration that have only accelerated since the era of lockdowns. Likewise, both governments are engaged in what can only be described as a regulatory war against farmers. Both Nigel Farage and Jeremy Clarkson have accused the Starmer regime of seeking to break small farmers so they can sell their land, which can then be turned into new-build housing to soak up the housing shortage created by immigrants.

So, who will own the houses? Who will build them? And if farmers are no longer producing our food, then where will our food come from?

Furthermore, the Net Zero obsession still shows no signs of being reeled in, yet when we combine all of these various policies, the stark, unmistakable reality is that the government has locked itself into a trajectory of reducing energy consumption, productive farmland, and livestock while simultaneously and without mandate (again) drastically increasing via mass immigration the demand for energy, food, and housing stock.

The common factor in every grift and swindle embedded within the entire ecosystem is the ever-present NGO, corporate, and governmental hydra roiling around within supranational bodies in an incestuous orgy of corruption and sleaze.

There is a sense that a vast set of pincers is gradually closing around the fabric of life in Britain without any clear explanation of what exactly is happening. Farmers find themselves navigating the regulatory sprawl while ‘‘elites’’ eye up their farms as assets, potential windfarms, carbon capture schemes (£22 billion pledged), rewilding plans, which seem to serve no purpose other than reducing food consumption, and possible new-build estates paid for and owned by private equity firms.

The sheer, transparent cynicism of the Starmer Regime’s inheritance tax on farmers smacks of a thug sent in by a mob boss to dish out a punishment beating to the guy who ‘‘doesn’t play ball’’.

And it’s not just the farmland, it’s the entire countryside. The NIMBYs are about to get owned because Labour has changed legislation protecting Greenbelt land and adopted the term ‘‘Grey Belt’’. According to Urbanist Architecture blog, Grey Belt land is:

Grey belt second: Poor-quality and ‘ugly’ areas of the Green Belt should be clearly prioritised over nature-rich, environmentally valuable land in the Green Belt. At present, beyond the existing brownfield category the system doesn’t differentiate between them. This category will be distinct from brownfield with a wider definition.

Grey Belt land is essentially land that does not meet an arbitrary criteria of what constitutes natural beauty. For example, your favourite Sunday afternoon walks along a stretch of river or coast might feature an old mill or hollowed-out Victorian house, which adds an eerie Gothic aesthetic and feel to the area. Well, that simply doesn’t tick the correct boxes and, therefore, has no reason not to be demolished to make way for an immigrant-stuffed block of flats paid for by a private equity firm in Manhattan. It is very convenient for the government to grease the wheels of the planning bureaucracy in this way. It’s almost as if they were expecting large swathes of already worked farmland containing old buildings and structures to enter the property and development markets at some near point in the future.

There is no place for poetry or the soul in this world of bureaucratic managerialism, which is dominated by financial interests. The Guardian reported:

Greenfields equivalent to double the size of Milton Keynes will need to be used to meet the government’s housebuilding pledge, according to one of the country’s leading urbanists who has said planners should take “confident bites” out of the green belt.

…If Labour stayed in power for two terms, land the equivalent of one-and-a-half Birminghams would be taken up to build 3m homes even if 60% of homes were built on previously used land, he said. If no previously used land is found, that rises to three-and-a-half Birminghams.

Britain’s Middle Classes are finally going to get it in the neck. We can mock them and indulge in schadenfreude that they voted for it, but the truth is, such policies were baked into the governance structure regardless of the party branding.

Despite the seemingly limitless population growth through immigration and the reduction of available farmland, Starmer announced at the latest COP 29 Climate Summit that he pledged to reduce Britain’s carbon emissions by 81%(!) before 2035, primarily through offshore wind farms.

Thus, growth and de-growth occur simultaneously. As the population increases, the resources needed to maintain it decrease. What happens when the two ends of the burning candle eventually meet in the middle? And will it happen before or after the much-touted deadline of 2030?

Note, dear reader, that I have not even mentioned the corresponding issue of automation and AI replacing workers across the entire spectrum of life, but just for the sake of it, let us now add that into the broth. We’re set to decrease the energy supply, reduce the food supply, and decrease the need for workers while at the same time artificially inflating the population through immigration.

Naturally, the Regime’s censors and watchdog quangos will accuse me of spreading misinformation and conspiracies, yet I’m looking objectively at government policy and mainstream news sources. If I am processing these facts incorrectly, how should I understand them?

Is this it, then? Did the Great Reset never truly get mothballed but instead become just a blunt and incoherent swindle? Long gone now are the idealistic xylophone soundtracks to flashy digitized apartments with smart watches and racially non-descript joggers, all living under the ever-present beep of machines of loving grace.

Ultimately, I suspect the idea is to replace small family farms with giant Agenda 2030 and WHO-compliant mega-farms that sell a small array of produce to the corporate supermarket, perhaps owned by the parent investment bank you rent your flat from. You may not own nothing, but you won’t own much, and it seems as if the being happy bit has been left in 2020, along with a billion tattered facemasks choking the wildlife.

Ultimately, this is not a counsel of despair because I do not see how this is viable in the long term. The world turned, and geopolitical realities asserted themselves once again. The Trump administration will junk whatever remains of America’s various obligations to the technocratic oligarchs, at least those who do not put American power front and centre of their objectives.

In a recent video, I pointed toward a near future wherein the United Kingdom becomes a lonely, woke North Korea, a relic of an era now dead, preserved in fossilized form and widely derided on the world stage.

As the farmers prepare to protest in London on November 19th, as they have already done across Europe, we can remind ourselves of Klaus Schwab’s prophecy of the 2020s being an “angry time” and wonder how much more angry people will have to get before 2030 actually arrives.