[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V6nucKFK88

Pretty good for Wayland.

That is definitely possible, as there's been a lot of silly lockstep ideological reviewing of things in the last 5 years. However, Jeremy Jahns, who reviews movies based on them being movies (and them not being not sufficiently post-structural, post-colonial critiques of the patriarchy) likes it based on movie reasons, so that was encouraging.

The Tories were barely right-wing, and they were in power for 14 years, not 20+, and for the first 4 they were in a coalition with the lib dems.

Look at the immigration numbers in the UK to see how not right-wing they were. Insane to think that's actually right wing.

> or the UKIP goon's forcibly removed me from their "Free Speech Conference"

The UKIP conference removing you is not evidence of general soft power in the UK.

However, Cambodia:

> Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were supported for many years by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by Mao Zedong;[c] it is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which the Khmer Rouge received came from China, including at least US $1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid in 1975 alone.[11][12][13] After it seized power in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge wanted to turn the country into an agrarian socialist republic, founded on the policies of ultra-Maoism and influenced by the Cultural Revolution. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

If someone takes something from you by force and spends it, they're spending your money.

> as its "not other peoples money" is a monetary system that the government lets us use

The government doesn't "let" us use it. If we don't use it (e.g. by swapping services directly) then the government gets annoyed and tries to insert taxable transactions into that direct value swap. It makes us use it.

No, BBC, the government doesn't have money. It costs the net taxpayer that much a day.