Tuesday, 25 September 2018

A very naughty boy

The latest kinder, gentler politics kerfuffle is footage of a feckless young character called Sion Rickard, a classic example of what you get when you abandon discipline and rigour in education, suggesting that Toryism can be educated out. Don’t you just love it when the young and unemployable explain to those of us who pay for everything, who build everything, who take care of everything, how society ought to work? Sion has, of course deleted his social media presence, which announced him variously to be vacuous, flimsy, inconsequential and arty, so the vicious Tory thugs couldn’t point and laugh.

Oops, too late. If you’re going to pop up on Jeremy Christ’s stage and thump the tub for applause by trotting out the tired old dogma of the Nasty Tory narrative you ought, really, to have the bottle for the fight. He said – on education, for which he is a clearly an authoritative spokesman: “If we give them a proper Education ...we will probably have no Tories”. Cue thunderous applause from the drooling stooges; what a shame that the evidence shows pretty much that well-educated, gainfully employed people eventually graduate toward the Conservative view of life.

But hey, when you are building a movement (what the hell does that even mean?) you must never let the truth get in the way of a piss-poor aphorism. As Dawn Butler said the other day “Better to break the law than break the poor”; shame she missed the bit about how New-New-Labourism will actually make the poor. Forget the statistics, forget the polls and look at the simple reality; socialism can only ever work if everybody buys into it and that runs counter to human nature. Rickard’s naïve dream relies on the cult-like grooming of young minds to reject the family and adopt the tribe; the rag-tag rabble of ‘disadvantaged’ minorities who deem themselves entitled to a share of the producers’ output.

Jeremy Christ himself said in his sermon: “The super-rich are on borrowed time.” No, Jeremy, their time is bought, paid for and secured away from grasping states in offshore vaults on private islands. You will never be able to touch the super-rich; that’s how they got that way. Those you will go after are the lower-hanging fruit, the fruit you can squeeze, as Denis Healey gleefully announced, until the pips squeak. This was the Chancellor who presided over the economy and the political climate which brought about the ‘winter of discontent’. How did that go for you, Den? 

I work longer hours than all of my immediate colleagues, for which I get paid considerably more (don’t tell them!) I avoid tax by ploughing every penny I can spare into my pension. I expect to have work until at least 70 before being able to retire with any degree of comfort. Under a Corbynite government my thrift would be deemed ‘fat cattery’ and taxed so that others may retire earlier. You may be able to persuade young parents that their children’s interests lie in embracing punitive taxation on those who have accumulated some wealth, but try taking that wealth from their grandparents.

Jesus Corbyn, Jeremy Christ...

The conclusions from the Labour 2018 Conference? That old socialists never die and that they never learn. That the politics of envy is alive and well and stoking the flames of class hatred anew. That the false prophets of equality, diversity and multiculturalism put doctrine before cold, hard truths and bellow for the nebulous rewards of ‘social justice’ from their pulpits while having no regard to actual justice. And that there is no fool like an old fool. I think the second coming of the Messiah may need to be postponed.

Sunday, 23 September 2018


To be fair to Jeremy Corbyn – and Labour as a whole – they have some lovely ideas. No, really, they do; the kind of ideas that must have crossed everybody’s mind at some point. For instance: everybody should have a job commensurate with their abilities, which pays sufficient for them to raise a family. They should live in a decent and affordable home, adequate for their needs and be able to eat good food in sufficiency without undergoing hardship to do so. And after their working lives they should be able to afford a long, healthy, happy retirement before going off to the farm.

People should enjoy quality education and encourage succeeding generations to embrace the advantages it bestows, while not denigrating good, honest toil for the less academic. A bin-man should have the same opportunity to live a satisfying life as a brain surgeon and assistance and encouragement should always be available for those who wish to explore avenues new. You should be free to pursue your lifestyle preferences just as you should respect the choices of others.

It almost goes without saying that a decent society should provide healthcare, clean air, good transport and reliable infrastructure to deliver power and communication links, water and sanitation to all. Nobody should be sleeping on the streets, nobody should be constantly afraid of violence and everybody should be able to go about their daily lives without being intimidated in any way. Those who transgress should be swiftly and humanely dealt with and everybody should have access to good legal representation.

See; who could disagree? But surely every party has the same wish list? Is there really a significant proportion of the electorate who would vote for parties which promise the opposite? The fact is that the only way in which one British political party is distinguishable from any other is ‘the plan’. And as always Labour’s plan for all these wonderful-sounding aspirations is to simply legislate for it and tax the rich. In other words, you’d better be happy, or else prepare to receive the full force of the law.

Jeremy models his outfit for 
the Glorious Leader's address

I hear nothing new from the Labour Conference (and I expect no better from the Tories next week) instead I hear only echoes of a failed past. Nationalise, soak the rich, grab the land and if Dawn Butler’s absurd utterings are to be taken at face value, bring back Militant Tendency. Labour – once a party united in its determination to represent the working class - has become bi-polar; Dr Jeremy and Mr Hyde, two personalities struggling to control the same body-politic. If you want the proof, ask any Labour MP what the party stance is on Brexit.

Friday, 21 September 2018


An interesting article by Anne Applebaum in the Spectator raises the spectre of right-wing propaganda and invokes the notion of a legion of useful idiots, duped into backing a position which may be contrary to their real beliefs and harmful to their fortunes. The Tories are so addicted to Brexit, she says, that they’re making horrific new alliances in Eastern Europe and don’t realise that they are being taken for fools. Says who?

Given Applebaum’s credentials in this area do we believe her? Steeped in the study of Marxism-Leninism and being a visiting professor at that hot bed of socialist thought, the LSE, is she genuinely warning of a grave danger, or this a cheeky, sneaky foray into propaganda on her own part? Is it mischief, or is it genuine or is it – and here’s the rub - driven by her own myopia? I mean, is it more likely that there are many useful idiots, or just the one?

I’m not for one second saying that she’s wrong. The fact is, I just don’t know. And neither do you. We can’t even rely on our own direct experiences because they are seen through the distorting prism of our own beliefs. Faith, social class, education, upbringing and the political background of our formative years all play a part. Give me the child until seven, sayeth the Jesuit, and I will give you the man. Basically, when it comes to separating fact from fiction in the socio-political arena, we’re fucked.

Who do you trust? Michael Gove, from relatively humble beginnings, should resound with the hoi polloi and was probably doing so until he clumsily leapt aboard the Brexit charabanc only to then disembark in equally ungainly fashion when he saw his bread buttered on a different side. As a result he is political poison now. Boris, on the other hand is clearly out for Boris and Boris alone, nobody doubts it; yet he is somehow more credible as a Brexiteer. He has decided to cling to the charade of being a man of the people when he is clearly anything but. And it seems to be working.

It’s all about perception; and that, of course is the entire problem. Do you perceive that you have more freedom as part of the EU, or are you merely accepting restraint in return for the illusion of liberty? Or do you believe that Brussels wraps its red tape around your liberties and freedom can only come with total independence? Will we be poorer or richer outside the EU? The debate currently seems to be between those who believe they will be richer in and those who genuinely don’t care and would rather be poorer out, so long as they are out.

As Theresa May has been firmly told, there are no half measures. In or out, take it or leave it. We voted to leave, but we are now being told different stories. The older people who did so are now dead. The young demand their say and will resoundingly vote to stay. Remainers enraged at the EU’s intransigence will switch to Leave. Almost all politicians want to keep the decision making out of the hands of the populists... except for the populists. And why does the EU ‘care’ so much about whether we stay or leave?

Seriously though, who knows?

Nobody knows the future and anybody who claims to so do is a charlatan. Our own position relies not on facts, but on belief. So, do we know we are being manipulated and are happy to jog along, or do we not know and believe we have autonomy? Is the propaganda really effective, or does it only affect them, those others, the willing dupes? Or maybe, we are quite happy to let the Viktor Orbáns run the show because it plays into our hands, we who see through all the shenanigans? If you’re not confused, maybe you don’t understand the game at all. Who’s the useful idiot now?

Thursday, 20 September 2018

Not normal

What do you mean, you’re not gay? What’s wrong with you, boy? Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to assume your gender. Nor your sexuality, come to that. Or, even, your lack of either. You have to feel sorry for Frank Oz, getting stick from the leftists for daring to innocently explain that Bert and Ernie are puppets, that have neither the apparatus nor the inclination to engage in the whole gender war clusterfuck that parts of our society have become hostage to.

There is an entire panoply of departures from normality which are considered not only tolerable, but acceptable in society today, with very little in the way of checks and balances. You think you are a trans-female lesbian – a man, who wants to be a woman, who wants to fuck women? Go ahead, be our guest, but you do know that the equipment you were born with is actually designed to perform in alignment with your sexual preferences.

You are eight years old; what do you mean, you haven’t selected your gender? By not only recognising abnormality – departures from the majority, the norm, the things most people identify with - but in trying to normalise it, some quarters are practically eulogising difference. Cohesive societies are founded not on difference, but on common ground. And one of the common grounds of civilised western societies is a tolerance for the minorities who don’t exhibit the traits of the majority.

But we are creating problems which barely exist, proposing solutions which merely create more problems; trying so hard to incorporate the needs, the demands of ultra-minority into our national portrait that we are blurring lines and in particular we are confusing those who most need order. This article clearly warns of the dangers: “It would appear, from these productions, that the BBC is glamourising transgenderism for children – telling them that any confusion can be easily swept away with the magic of changing clothing and hairstyles, using different pronouns and taking a few pills.

If everything goes, is there anything which doesn’t go? The worldwide Pride events are becoming more and more demonstrations not of genuine pride in shared identity but garish, almost threatening visions of a world with no rules.  'This parade and costumes designed by Hieronymus Bosch – abandon hope all ye who enter here', especially the young and impressionable. As the barriers fall, nothing can be deemed unacceptable for debate. Next up, the normalisation of paedophilia?

The new normal?

Listen, if promoting the kinds of sexuality that the more avant-garde elements of the Pride fraternity/sorority (What term to use? Even ‘family’ may offend) is deemed acceptable, nay desirable, how can you reject non-violent, consensual sex between an under-sixteen and an over-twenty? Has anybody asked Bill Wyman? Quite rightly, the law draws a line, but who is drafting the borders around gender and sexual normality? Why, those who want no lines at all. It’s bloody queer, I tell you.

Monday, 17 September 2018


History is always looking for heroes but what it seeks and what it gets are often worlds apart. When Nigel Farage took the aimless and disjointed UK Independence Party from its fruitcake and closet racist characterisation to become a serious challenger to the cosy LabCon cartel, he donned the cloak and took up the sword. His no-nonsense, man-of-the-people schtick rallied hundreds of thousands and forced the referendum. Make no mistake, Ukip gave us the EU referendum and earned for Farage a brief flicker of heroic flame.

But where did he go? My generous side is still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt; that the relentless negative media, the Farage-bashing by the established politicians, the opprobrium of the chattering classes, drove him to exhaustion. I am even prepared to believe, to a point, that he felt he had built up a movement but had seen his portrayal as holding the party back and was honourably stepping down to allow fresh blood to take the stage. I’ll give him all that... except.

The referendum result, the rise of Ukip, the standing up of patriotic people to superimposed governance everywhere, has been described in the establishment press as a racist reaction to immigration. That simplistic label is both insulting and craven. Most British people are quite happy to see Pepe, Giuseppe and Krystyna bustling away with their continental verve; keeping the wheels of industry and commerce turning merrily away; contributing to society as a whole and generally fitting in pretty well.

We are comfortable that Piotr, Lukasz and Ugne are picking fruit and packing peas, just so long as our own kids are getting a look-in. To see whole sections of formerly traditionally British towns become East European backwaters was something of a shock, a decade or so ago, but even this was manageable; European immigration was never the worst problem. Even membership of a trading bloc was not an issue. What was important, the thing which really fuelled the Brexit vote, was the feeling of powerlessness against a state which had bought into something far worse.

Standing up to the EU at times had the churlish appearance of a teenager standing up to parents who ultimately wanted the best. So, you want to make your own rules? Which of our rules do you find so bad; which would you change? All governments in the west are simply shades of socialism, which in this wider form is hardly harmful and brings undeniable benefits. But this desire to be inclusive, non-judgmental and egalitarian harbours harmful hypocrisies, not least the acceptance of an ideology which will never align with our values.

So when Anne Marie Waters’ bid for the Ukip leadership was thwarted by Nigel Farage’s championing of the insipid and ultimately useless Henry Bolton his mask slipped. Happy to garner the acclaim for bringing about the referendum result; happy to bask in the plaudits for his audacious stand-ups in the European Parliament, he balked when confronted with a real issue which simply has to be confronted head-on. Was he got at? Was he paid off? Why is Nigel Farage afraid of tackling the elephant that is islam?

You want it blunt? Let’s not call it islamism, or islamic terrorism, or islamic fundamentalism; let’s be straight and call it what it is; islam. And this is what Anne Marie dared to do; to name the beast and stand against it for which she has been vilified, targeted and framed as some sort of Nazi. In her own words, Anne Marie Waters is a former Labour member who grew up. And stood up and went on to found a movement which unashamedly says what nobody else in public life has really dared to say. Oh, except for Tommy Robinson, peace be upon him.

You want heroes? Right there; Tommy and Anne Marie stand out, towering above the gutless appeasement of the established powers. Those charged with our protection are instead protecting those who would harm us. Those we should turn to have turned away. The defenders of our freedoms and way of life are not the entitled ruling classes, not the police, the law, Parliament, but those who should better know their place and get back into their stinking hovels and kow and tow and tug their forelocks.

When the leaders don’t lead, when the concerns of the population go disregarded, when the people learn they can rely only on themselves, that is how revolutions begin. When the soft-handed incumbents of safe seats, sit in silence and refuse to listen, it is we - the rough people, the low people, the unsophisticated who are sick to death of lofty moralising and empty words – it is ourselves to whom we turn. Every parliamentarian who has dared to defy their voters should be quaking in their boots; change is coming; it can’t come too soon.