Why Chris Eubank Would Make a Better Mayor of Brighton Than a Career Politician.

When it comes to leadership, Brighton faces a critical choice: another career politician who sees the mayor’s office as a stepping stone to higher positions, or a true maverick, a man of principle, discipline, and integrity—Chris Eubank. The former boxing champion is more than just a sporting icon; he is a self-made man, a public figure who has shown resilience, intelligence, and an unwavering commitment to his beliefs. Unlike career politicians who often prioritise their own financial security over the well-being of their constituents, Eubank brings with him a history of personal achievement, a connection with the people, and a refusal to be bullied by political bureaucracy.

A Man of Character Over a Politician of Convenience.

Career politicians enter public office with one primary concern: staying in power for as long as possible. Their decisions are driven not by principles, but by polls, focus groups, and party loyalty. They rely on scripted speeches, empty promises, and well-crafted public personas that crumble the moment they are faced with real scrutiny. Chris Eubank, in contrast, is a man who has lived by a personal code of conduct. He has never been afraid to stand by his convictions, even when they are unpopular. Brighton deserves a mayor who is not afraid to make difficult choices and who is not beholden to party politics.

Chris Eubank - Brighton's Future Mayor

Discipline, Resilience, and Real Leadership.

Eubank’s career as a boxer exemplifies the qualities Brighton needs in a mayor. His discipline in training, his ability to overcome adversity, and his mental toughness are the same qualities that would make him an excellent leader. Politics, like boxing, requires the ability to stand firm under pressure, to take hits, and to keep moving forward. A career politician, comfortable in their position and insulated from the consequences of their own decisions, lacks this fighting spirit. Brighton needs someone who will not back down in the face of adversity—someone who will take the hits and keep standing.

A Genuine Connection With the People.

Chris Eubank is not just a famous face; he is a man who has lived among the people, engaging with them directly, and standing up for what he believes is right. He has been a vocal critic of injustice, from social issues to political corruption. Unlike career politicians, who often hide behind bureaucratic processes, Eubank has never been afraid to speak his mind or challenge authority. Brighton deserves a leader who is accessible, who listens, and who understands what it means to struggle and succeed on one’s own terms.

An End to the Political Gravy Train.

One of the biggest problems with career politicians is their ability to manipulate the system for personal gain. They enter office not to serve the people, but to secure lucrative salaries, benefits, and post-office opportunities. Brighton has seen its fair share of politicians who make promises they never intend to keep, who waste taxpayers’ money on vanity projects, and who care more about their party than the people they were elected to serve. Chris Eubank has no need for the political gravy train. He has already built a successful career through hard work and dedication. He is not in it for the money—he is in it because he genuinely wants to make a difference.

A Fighter for Brighton’s Future.

Brighton needs a leader who will fight for its future, not just another politician who will toe the party line. Chris Eubank has shown throughout his career that he is a fighter, not just in the ring, but in life. He has faced adversity, stood his ground, and emerged stronger. A career politician will offer the same recycled promises, the same tired rhetoric, and the same predictable failure to deliver real change. Eubank, on the other hand, would bring a fresh approach, one rooted in resilience, integrity, and genuine service to the people.

In a time when political corruption and self-interest have become the norm, Brighton needs a champion, not another career politician. Chris Eubank is that champion.

Matt Taylor Backs Chris Eubank for Brighton Mayor in 2026.

In a surprising political move, maverick politician and Brighton and Hove mayoral candidate for 2026, Matt Taylor, has announced he is willing to step aside and throw his support behind boxing legend Chris Eubank to become the city’s first democratically elected mayor.

Chris Eubank

Taylor, leader of the King Arthur Political Party, has long championed himself as the ideal candidate to bring change to Brighton. However, in a statement today, he revealed he believes Eubank is the only person better suited for the role.

“In the interests of what is best for Brighton, there is only one person who I believe is a better candidate than myself, and that's Chris Eubank,” Taylor declared. “While he may not be a Brightonian by birth, he chose Brighton to raise his family, and his children are Brightonian. Chris Eubank has been a champion of Brighton for as long as I can remember, and I urge him to consider running as Brighton’s first democratically elected mayor.”

Chris Eubank, the former world champion boxer, is known not only for his achievements in the ring but also for his larger-than-life personality and deep connection to Brighton, where he lived for many years. His presence in the city has made him a local icon, and Taylor believes he possesses the leadership and charisma needed to guide Brighton into a new era.

Taylor’s endorsement of Eubank raises intriguing questions about the upcoming election and whether the boxing legend will heed the call to enter the political ring. Brighton’s first mayoral race is already shaping up to be one of the most unpredictable in the city's history.

Under the Cosh: The Mental Impact of Constant Pressure.

To be under the cosh is to live with an unrelenting sense of pressure, to feel trapped in a relentless cycle of scrutiny, judgment, and fear. It is the constant weight of knowing that at any moment, your world could collapse—not because of your own failings, but because someone else has decided to be offended, alarmed, or distressed by your character and humour. This essay explores the psychological toll of living under such circumstances and the broader implications of a world where subjective feelings can dictate someone else's reality.

The Silent Cry for Help!

The Unseen Burden of Constant Pressure.

Imagine waking up each day with the knowledge that every word you say, every joke you make, every opinion you express could be the trigger that sets off an avalanche of repercussions. The feeling is not just stress—it is something deeper, something more corrosive. It is the mental exhaustion of being hyper-aware, of second-guessing every action and bracing for an attack that may come from nowhere.

For those under the cosh, there is no reprieve. There is no safe moment to exhale, no opportunity to lower the guard. Whether online or in person, the fear lingers like a shadow, whispering, Will today be the day everything crumbles? This kind of sustained pressure breeds anxiety, paranoia, and in extreme cases, a sense of helplessness. It is not merely a case of being disliked or criticized—those things can be endured. It is the knowledge that one's very existence, or at least one's right to express themselves, is at the mercy of others' sensitivities.

The Weaponisation of Offence.

At the core of this relentless pressure is the idea that subjective feelings can be used as weapons. We live in an era where being offended or alarmed is enough to justify severe consequences. It no longer matters whether something was meant in jest, satire, or even in good faith. If someone, somewhere, decides that they feel attacked, that alone can be enough to put someone under the cosh.

This shifting dynamic places immense power in the hands of the accusers. It is a power without accountability, because offence is inherently personal and unpredictable. What amuses one person might horrify another. What one sees as harmless banter, another may perceive as an unforgivable transgression. This creates a scenario where people are held hostage by the emotional responses of others, where humour, personality, and individuality are constantly under threat.

The Psychological Toll of Living in Fear.

Living under this pressure is not sustainable. The human mind is not designed to operate under constant scrutiny and threat. Over time, the weight of potential backlash—whether real or imagined—leads to chronic stress. The symptoms are well-documented: insomnia, irritability, exhaustion, and a creeping sense of isolation. One starts to withdraw, censoring not only their words but their very thoughts.

This is not merely a matter of being politically correct or respectful. This is about a society where people fear that their character, their past, and even their intentions can be twisted against them at any moment. It is about the erosion of resilience, where people are discouraged from pushing boundaries or engaging in open discourse because the risk is too great.

The Need for Perspective and Resilience.

There must be a counterbalance to this culture of hypersensitivity. People must be allowed to have a sense of humour, to challenge ideas, and to exist without walking on eggshells. This is not a call for cruelty or recklessness, but for perspective. Not everything that is said or done is meant to harm. Not every joke is an attack. Not every disagreement is an act of war.

To be under the cosh is to live in a world where good intentions no longer matter, where personal resilience is replaced by collective fragility. It is an unsustainable model, both for individuals and for society as a whole. If we continue down this path, the cost will be not just the mental health of individuals, but the loss of free thought, creativity, and even humanity itself.

The solution? Perhaps it starts with the simple act of refusing to be under the cosh in the first place. Of reclaiming the right to speak, to joke, to exist unapologetically. Because if we allow fear to dictate our every move, then we are not truly living—we are merely surviving.

JOIN ME ON SUBSTACK

https://substack.com/@mttv

Maverick Politician Matthew Taylor and Donald Trump: Outsiders Shaping Politics.

Leaving the balances of their bank accounts aside, Maverick Brighton politician Matthew Taylor and former U.S. President Donald Trump share striking similarities. Both men have positioned themselves as political outsiders, challenging the status quo and seeking to shake up entrenched systems.

Anti-Establishment Firebrands.

Trump and Taylor are not career politicians; they come from outside the traditional political elite and have built their reputations on defying the mainstream. Trump, a billionaire businessman, entered politics on a promise to "drain the swamp," taking on both Democrats and Republicans. Taylor, an independent-minded candidate running for Mayor of Brighton, challenges the local establishment with his King Arthur Political Party, presenting an alternative vision for governance.

Both men have been dismissed as unorthodox, yet their willingness to confront their opponents head-on has earned them dedicated followings. Trump leveraged social media to bypass traditional news outlets, while Taylor has used MattTaylorTV to engage directly with his audience, offering an unfiltered take on political and social issues.

Putting Their Countries First.

"America First" was a defining slogan of Trump’s presidency, emphasising nationalism, economic self-sufficiency, and strong borders. Taylor shares a similar outlook, advocating for policies that prioritise Brighton and the UK over globalist influences. His approach seeks to empower local communities rather than rely on directives from Westminster or beyond.

Like Trump, Taylor faces resistance from entrenched political forces. Trump's presidency was marked by clashes with the media, the political establishment, and even elements within his own party. Taylor, too, has faced opposition from local authorities, political figures, and critics who attempt to discredit him.

Media Battles and Public Perception.

Both Trump and Taylor understand that politics is as much about perception as it is about policy. Trump’s combative relationship with the press led him to label many mainstream media outlets as "fake news." Taylor, likewise, has called out what he sees as biased reporting and smear campaigns against him, particularly in cases where he believes his views are being misrepresented or censored.

Despite this, both men have managed to carve out their own narratives, maintaining direct connections with their supporters. Trump's rallies became legendary, drawing massive crowds that defied media expectations. Taylor, while operating on a smaller scale, uses direct engagement, social media, and alternative platforms to spread his message without relying on traditional media gatekeepers.

Conclusion.

While their bank accounts and national influence may differ, Matthew Taylor and Donald Trump share a spirit of defiance, nationalism, and a commitment to political disruption. Both men have built their platforms on the belief that the system is rigged against the people, and both have faced relentless pushback from those who seek to maintain the status quo.

As Taylor continues his campaign for Mayor of Brighton, his willingness to challenge the establishment and put his city first mirrors Trump’s larger battle to reshape American politics. Whether he succeeds or not, one thing is certain—Matthew Taylor, like Trump, is a force to be reckoned with.

JOIN ME ON SUBSTACK

https://substack.com/@mttv

The Nightmare of Allowing Ukraine Nuclear Weapons.

The world has long recognised the dangers of nuclear proliferation. It is why Iran has been subjected to heavy sanctions and diplomatic pressure to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, some voices now argue that Ukraine should be granted nuclear arms—a move that would be nothing short of madness. If Iran, a regional power, is deemed too dangerous to possess nuclear weapons, how could it possibly be justifiable to allow Ukraine, a nation in direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia, to obtain them?

The last time the world teetered on the brink of nuclear annihilation was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In October 1962, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba, just 90 miles from the United States, tensions escalated to the point where global destruction seemed imminent. The crisis was only defused through last-minute diplomacy, but it left a lasting lesson: placing nuclear weapons in a conflict zone or near a nuclear rival is a recipe for disaster.

If Ukraine were to acquire nuclear weapons, the situation would be even more dangerous. Unlike Cuba in 1962, Ukraine is not merely a geopolitical pawn—it is an active participant in a war with Russia. Providing Ukraine with nuclear arms would be akin to placing American warheads in Cuba at the height of Cold War tensions, but with a crucial difference: Ukraine, unlike Cuba, has suffered territorial losses to Russia and is already engaged in open conflict. This would mean that the potential for a nuclear exchange would be vastly higher.

Russia has already made it clear that it considers NATO expansion to be an existential threat. The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be a red line, and yet some Western policymakers continue to flirt with the idea. Have they forgotten how Russia responded when Ukraine was promised NATO membership? Do they think a nuclear-armed Ukraine would be tolerated any more than nuclear missiles in Cuba were tolerated in 1962? The inevitable outcome of such a reckless policy would be escalation—perhaps even an immediate preemptive strike by Russia to neutralize the perceived threat.

Beyond Russia’s reaction, allowing Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons would set a dangerous precedent. If Ukraine—a country that voluntarily gave up its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal under the Budapest Memorandum—is now rewarded with nuclear weapons, what message does that send to other countries? It tells every non-nuclear state that disarmament is a mistake and that the only way to secure their sovereignty is to acquire nuclear arms. It would trigger a global arms race, undoing decades of non-proliferation efforts.

The risks far outweigh any perceived strategic benefits. If the goal is peace, security, and stability, nuclear weapons in Ukraine would achieve the opposite. They would not deter Russia but rather provoke an escalation that could spiral out of control. Instead of walking blindly into another Cuban Missile Crisis—this time in Eastern Europe—the world must remember the lessons of history. Nuclear brinkmanship is not a game that anyone wins.

It is sheer madness to have a global policy that declares Iran must never have nuclear weapons but simultaneously entertains the idea of arming Ukraine. The same logic that applies to Iran applies even more urgently to Ukraine. Nuclear weapons in the hands of any nation engaged in active war are an unacceptable risk. The world must stand firm against this insanity before it is too late.

MattTaylorTV! - More of Nothing... Tuesday 4 March 2025...

A Night of Banter, Nostalgia, and Random Musings: A Recap of Brighton's Best Live Stream.

Last night’s livestream hosted by Brighton's Best was a whirlwind of humour, nostalgia, and random tangents that kept viewers entertained from start to finish. With a mix of familiar faces and lively banter, the chat was as much a part of the show as the host himself. Here’s a recap of the highlights from the session.

The Usual Suspects and Friendly Banter.

The stream kicked off with greetings from regulars like Lenny, The Ice Man Isak Finnbogason, and Sandra T. From the outset, we were blessed with the presence of The Dream Team legend Brian Hurle, who briefly jumped on to say hi and show his support for the show. The chat was lively from the get-go, with Lenny leading the charge with his signature wit and occasional provocations. From asking, “What’s too late to eat dinner?” to debating whether dogs can commit suicide (yes, really), Lenny kept the conversation unpredictable.

Fiona Barnett, calling in from Australia, added an international flair to the stream, while Brian Hurle and Matt Taylor exchanged friendly jabs. The camaraderie was evident, with everyone chiming in to share their thoughts—or just to stir the pot.

Nostalgia and Pop Culture Deep Dives.

The chat took a nostalgic turn as Lenny and others reminisced about the golden days of Hollywood and comedy. Eddie Murphy’s legendary run in the 80s with films like Trading Places and Coming to America was a hot topic. Lenny even quipped about Murphy’s alleged encounter with “Insane Spice” (a playful mix-up of Mel B’s Scary Spice moniker), sparking laughter and debate.

Christopher Lee and Daniel Day Lewis were hailed as true film stars, with Lenny lamenting the lack of modern equivalents. The conversation even veered into urban myths, like the debunked rumour of Walt Disney’s cryogenic freezing—a topic that fascinated the group.

Political Jabs and Conspiracy Theories.

No live-stream is complete without a touch of politics and conspiracy. Lenny didn’t hold back, calling Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “smarmy fake bastard” and a “slimeball,” claiming Canadians despise him. The chat also touched on Zelensky’s past as a comedian and drag performer, with Brighton's Best quipping, “Truth is far stranger than fiction!”

The conversation took a darker turn with mentions of MI5, Richard Whitely, and Ian Puddick, sparking debates about undercover operations and conspiracy theories. Roy Uberson and Pablos Discobar challenged Taylor’s tendency to “hound” people long after they’ve moved on, leading to a heated but entertaining exchange.

Random Musings and Unanswered Questions.

The chat was full of random, off-the-wall questions and observations. From Gene Hackman’s mysterious wife’s death (and whether the dog was involved) to whether Eddie Murphy has finally aged, the topics were as varied as they were bizarre. Lenny even asked if Matt had ever played Angry Birds, proving that no topic was too trivial for discussion.

A Heartfelt Sign-Off.

As the stream wrapped up, Brighton's Best thanked everyone for joining, calling the audience “the best.” The promise of another session tomorrow night left viewers eager for more. Lenny, ever the loyal participant, signed off with a simple “thanks Matt,” capping off another entertaining evening.

Final Thoughts.

What makes Brighton's Best streams so engaging is the mix of humour, nostalgia, and unpredictability. Whether it’s debating the merits of 80s comedies, diving into conspiracy theories, or just sharing a laugh, the community that gathers here is what keeps people coming back. Here’s to more banter, more nostalgia, and more random musings in the next stream!

What were your favourite moments from the stream? Let us know in the comments below! And don’t forget to tune in tomorrow night for another round of laughs and lively conversation.

A Clash of Perspectives: Lenny vs. Sandra T in Brighton's Best Live Stream.

Last night’s Brighton's Best live stream was filled with the usual banter, nostalgia, and random musings, but one exchange stood out for its mix of humour, tension, and a touch of social commentary. The conversation between Lenny and Sandra T highlighted the generational and cultural divides that often surface in casual online interactions. Here’s how it went down.

The Setup.

The chat was rolling along smoothly, with Lenny dropping his signature mix of jokes, pop culture references, and occasional provocations. At one point, he mentioned Richard Whitely, the late host of Countdown, and referred to Whitely’s partner as his “bird.”

Enter Sandra T.

The Exchange.

Lenny: “Matt. Richard Whiteley off Countdown’s bird has passed away.”

Lenny: “Don't think they were married. That's why I said bird.”

Sandra T: “Bird? That’s not nice.”

Sandra T: “Very misogynistic.”

Lenny: “Sandra T. I meant woman. It's slang. No need for that.”

Sandra T: “Still misogynistic.”

Lenny: “Yeah. Constantly offended.”

The Fallout.

The exchange didn’t escalate into a full-blown argument, but it sparked a brief debate in the chat about language, slang, and sensitivity. Lenny, representing a more old-school, no-nonsense perspective, brushed off the criticism with his trademark wit, while Sandra T stood her ground, calling out what she saw as outdated and disrespectful language.

Other chatters chimed in, with some siding with Lenny’s casual use of slang and others agreeing with Sandra’s point about the implications of certain terms. The conversation eventually moved on, but not without leaving a mark.

The Takeaways.

1. Generational Divides:
   The exchange highlighted how language evolves and how different generations perceive certain terms. For Lenny, “bird” was just harmless slang, while Sandra saw it as a relic of a more patriarchal era.

2. The Power of Words:
   Sandra’s pushback was a reminder that even casual language can carry weight and that being mindful of how we speak matters, especially in public forums.

3. The Role of Humour:
   Lenny’s response—“Yeah. Constantly offended.”—was classic Lenny: a mix of humour and deflection. It also underscored the tension between those who value freewheeling banter and those who advocate for more considerate communication.

Final Thoughts.

What made this exchange so compelling was its relatability. We’ve all been part of conversations where differing perspectives clash, whether online or in person. Lenny and Sandra’s back-and-forth was a microcosm of larger societal debates about language, respect, and the balance between humour and sensitivity.

In the end, both perspectives added depth to the stream, proving that even in a space meant for lighthearted banter, there’s room for meaningful dialogue.

What do you think? Was Lenny’s use of “bird” harmless slang, or does Sandra have a point about its implications? Let us know in the comments below!

Tales from YouTube - Analysis of Son of Sam's Response to Munker Forever on Matt Taylor.

The digital landscape often becomes a breeding ground for misinformation and baseless accusations, as seen in the recent comment by Munker Forever about Matt Taylor. While Munker Forever presents himself as a truth-seeker, his comment is riddled with assumptions and outright fabrications, which both Matt Taylor and Son of Sam promptly call out with scathing rebuttals.

Munker Forever’s Baseless Accusations.

“WOW! A custody battle ensues between Matt and Karina. 

WELL I'm vindicated again! I never lied about him not being allowed to see his children when I showed that email from Dan telling me about Justin Blabbing about Matt.   

It was ALL true obviously. 

Reading between the lines present day here, Matt has initiated a new fight for custody against Karina.   

Being Narcissist as he is, it's purely about power and control. 

A real  healthy father would never run a smear campaign especially  on social media attacking their mother whom they always live with and love. Which they could easily see and would be upset. 

This very act proves one to be an unfit person let alone parent and it's only the tip of the iceberg, all while being monitored by Sussex police for his general behaviour. for civil and legal reasons.”

Munker Forever’s comment makes several unfounded claims about Matt Taylor, including:

• That he is engaged in a custody battle with Karina.

• That past allegations of restricted access to his children were justified.

• That he is a narcissist driven by control rather than fatherhood.

• That he is actively monitored by Sussex Police for his behaviour.

None of these accusations are supported by verifiable evidence, yet Munker Forever presents them as undeniable truths. His narrative is clearly designed to smear Taylor’s reputation, relying on hearsay rather than facts. This is a common tactic used by online detractors who aim to shape public perception without offering concrete proof. The claim about police monitoring, in particular, is an attempt to add a layer of authority to his argument, yet no official confirmation of such surveillance exists.

Son of Sam’s Retort.

“For goodness sake Tony you really are a snivelling little weasel aren’t you, you seem to know an awful lot about being a father despite having sired no children of your own. 

The projection from your recent comments is laughable, the narcissism oozes from every pore in your body. 

Every opportunity you get you have to take a swipe at people, the people who see through your lies and manipulation, you cannot handle them can you Tony, they have burst your fragile ego like a balloon and that grates on you. 

You are a weak pathetic little man Tony, you have no life, no children, no real family, no aspirations, no dreams, no security, no future, the highlight of your life is trying to belittle people on social media, you are one of life’s losers Tony, a sad twisted delusional bullying loser.”

Unlike Taylor’s brief and dismissive reply, Son of Sam takes a direct and ruthless approach in dismantling Munker Forever’s credibility. He begins by highlighting Munker’s lack of firsthand experience with fatherhood, questioning his ability to comment on parenting matters with authority. This is a crucial point—Munker Forever positions himself as an expert in Taylor’s personal life despite having no real connection or insight beyond online speculation.

Key features of Son of Sam’s response include:

• A direct attack on Munker Forever’s credibility due to his lack of children.

• Accusations of hypocrisy, suggesting that Munker Forever’s criticisms stem from personal insecurity.

• A broader character assessment, painting Munker Forever as weak, socially isolated, and driven by a need to belittle others.

Son of Sam exposes the pattern of behaviour that Munker Forever engages in—relentlessly attacking individuals based on conjecture, twisting narratives to fit his agenda, and refusing to acknowledge when his accusations are proven false. The response is a forceful rejection of the falsehoods spread by Munker Forever, shifting the focus from Taylor to the integrity of those making the claims against him.

The Real Takeaway.

What this exchange highlights is a broader issue with online discourse: the ease with which misinformation spreads and the difficulty of combating it once it takes root. Munker Forever’s accusations are presented with confidence but lack any factual basis, whereas Son of Sam’s response directly challenges the legitimacy of the claims and exposes the motivations behind them.

This interaction serves as a reminder that online discussions are often fuelled by personal vendettas rather than truth. While Taylor’s dismissive reply cuts off engagement, Son of Sam ensures that the false narrative does not go unchallenged. The digital battlefield remains as volatile as ever, but responses like Son of Sam’s demonstrate that misinformation can, and should, be called out when it arises.

Examining Tony Quigley’s Comment on Matt Taylor: Projection and Narcissism.

Tony Quigley’s statement about Matt Taylor, where he outright declares, “He’s blatantly a narc!”—referring to Taylor as a narcissist—warrants deeper examination. On the surface, this is a simple accusation. However, as we analyze Quigley’s follow-up comments, the focus shifts from Taylor to Quigley himself, revealing significant insights into his psyche. Could it be that Quigley is projecting his own narcissistic tendencies onto Taylor?

Projection and Self-Revelation.

Projection is a well-documented psychological phenomenon wherein individuals attribute their own characteristics, thoughts, or feelings to others. By accusing Taylor of narcissism without substantive evidence, Quigley inadvertently reveals more about himself than about Taylor. He claims his father is a narcissist and, by extension, suggests that he has inherited certain intellectual and social traits from him. He states:

“As you know, I’m a genius, not boasting… I’m humble and change my speech and diction to whomever I’m talking to, so they can understand me fully.”

Here, Quigley simultaneously declares himself a genius while insisting he is humble—a classic contradiction often seen in those with narcissistic traits. True humility does not require proclamation. His self-described ability to modify his speech for different audiences further suggests a chameleon-like adaptability, a trait commonly associated with manipulative narcissism.

The Chameleon Effect: Adaptation or Deception?

Quigley’s claim that his father was “as high level as they come” in narcissism suggests admiration rather than disapproval. He goes on to say:

“He can speak posh and eloquently or go the other extreme and be common and coarse! He is a chameleon! Matt is basic but the traits are the same.”

By praising his father’s ability to switch personas, Quigley implies that such behaviour is not only acceptable but desirable. He further contrasts his father with Taylor, deeming Taylor “basic,” while simultaneously asserting that Taylor exhibits the same traits. This contradiction raises the question: if Taylor’s traits are the same as his father’s, why does he admire one but scorn the other? The inconsistency hints at an internal conflict—perhaps an unconscious projection of Quigley’s own tendencies onto Taylor.

Inheriting Narcissism: A Cycle or a Choice?

Quigley admits:

“IQ doesn’t make you a better person but my point is, I inherited this from my mother and father.”

His assertion that intelligence is inherited suggests a deterministic view of personality. 

However, his simultaneous reference to his father’s narcissism raises the possibility that Quigley may have also inherited this trait. His declaration that he has “learned from the best” could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of learned narcissistic behaviours rather than an objective observation.

Conclusion: Who is the Narcissist?

By dissecting Quigley’s statement, it becomes evident that his accusations against Taylor lack substantive evidence. Instead, his words seem to reflect a classic case of projection. His grandiosity, self-contradictions, and admiration for manipulative traits point toward his own narcissistic tendencies rather than Taylor’s. Thus, the question is not whether Matt Taylor is a narcissist, but whether Tony Quigley, in accusing Taylor, has inadvertently revealed himself to be one.