Diversity built Britain?

Hard on the heels of yet another barbaric muslim atrocity and the insistence by the close muslim community that these devout followers of islam are not real muslims, the Chancellor announces with some degree of pride a new 50p coin bearing the words ‘Diversity Built Britain’. Not content with that simple lie, he then states in a tweet: “I have seen first-hand the contribution made by ethnic minority communities to Britain’s history.” That would be all the fantastic ethnic historical figures of the last 40 years, then?

This is what propaganda looks like and it is bolstered by the continued presence in the broadcast schedules of the likes of Ash Sarkar and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and the grotesque Kehinde Andrews and Shola Mugabe Umbongo from SOAS, banging the race drum for all they are worth. Yes, they may be making black British history now, but none of it is helpful; it is just a non-stop demand for special treatment and unearned reparations. There can be no statues to celebrate their divisive actions.

It seems there is no position so extreme that the BBC will not give it oxygen, unless that position represents a white viewpoint. Whatever the topic, time should not be devoted to giving the majority view. Where is the balance? Where is the platform given to people who espouse personal responsibility and don’t forever demand that the government bows down before them? Important debates are not being had; important voices are not being heard.

I haven’t watched BBC Question Time in an age and not just because it airs a mere five hours before I get up to go to work. I have also tuned out of the weekend politics and discussion shows because they demand I spend far too much of my time listening to people with whom I profoundly disagree. Now, you may say, one ought to give ear-time to those with whom you disagree, the better to understand their argument and perhaps to empathise with their world view.

Fine, but why is the same tolerant patient demeanour not expected of them? It is okay for them to call me a Nazi, to insist that I live a life of hate, that I am a racist who despises all people of a different skin colour. But where is the condemnation of them when they blast me for the colour of MY skin? Hypocrisy is too weak a word; we need a new one to describe this prolonged attack on ordinary, decent, working people. This has been going on for decades now and every time somebody gets close to having a platform to air a contrary but no less valid viewpoint, they are screamed down.

Katie Hopkins, Darren Grimes, Roger Scruton, Douglas Murray and plenty of others have been de-platformed. Hell, even Germaine Greer was deemed insufficiently acquiescent to woke mobsters. What Alibhai-Brown said to Laurence Fox on Jeremy Vine’s show the other day would have had a nominal right-winger exposed to the might of the Crown Prosecution Service. What Darren Grimes said in exasperation some years ago, in the face of the extreme remain faction trying to overturn a democratic vote, has been held up by Femi Oluwole – yes a-fucking-nother one – as tantamount to inciting violence.

As I said, hypocrisy doesn’t begin to explain how some people get away with what would be a crime if aimed at them. The organised left, then, actually get to engage in violence and vandalism, with their never-ending assault on public decency. They get to exercise their right to protest with police protection while the police are deployed to whip up and then suppress those who exercise the same rights to different ends.

There is something sick about a society in which the majority view is regularly held to be the wrong view and those espousing it are regularly demeaned as bigots and fascists. And now, of course, Brexit is back on the menu. This means that the overworked insult ‘gammon’ is enjoying a whole new resurgence. That’s right, a term based on skin colour and used blanket-style to cast a majority sector of society as pantomime villains in jackboots. This is what diversity has built; and it has built little else.

Metaphors are Easy - the Truth is Hard

I’m planning on committing a hate crime. D’oh, what am I saying? I am thinking, therefore I am automatically committing a hate crime. It is only a matter of time before the pre-crime units throughout the land will be equipped with the necessary pre-cogs and intuits to read my mind. D’oh again, my mind is already being read as I type; as you read. You know what I’m going to think even before I think it myself. Bastards! (But you knew that, didn’t you?)

The trouble with facts is that that there are too damned many of them. Bloody facts, coming over here, raping our beliefs, taking advantage of our tolerance. Millions of facts are flooding into Europe; you can’t move for them. Sometimes I wonder if there is any space left for the truth, as the truth gets pushed out of our public lives and facts appear on our screens as if if fact lives are the only lives which matter.

Respected historian, David Starkey, paid a price for dabbling with the politics of facts and Darren Grimes in his turn is being made to suffer. There is no justice for truth these days, but threaten a fact and the Old Bill will turn up in a dawn raid to take your liberty in a heartbeat. The truth of the matter doesn’t, er, matter, when facts turn up en masse, demanding attention in far greater proportion to their numbers.

A very recent study even demonstrated that facts are over-represented in all visual broadcast media. What room is there, these days, for the truth, for all our truths… for our truths’ truths? I fear for the future of the young truths of today; they even want to be fact, as if somehow a raw fact has the same value as the honest truth. Truth is the bedrock of a civil society, whereas facts have a habit of multiplying without reason and imagining they have the same value without putting in the hard miles.

Yesterday, in response to a tweet about yet more rapefugee asylum seekers being represented by what are referred to by government voices as ‘lefty lawyers’ the Dorset Eye (me neither) challenged me to produce evidence to back up my re-assertion that they are, indeed, lefty lawyers. That is the truth of the matter; they are defending left wing ideals in regard to these invaders. But lawyers don’t deal in the truth, do they? They deal in facts. And facts, like statistics, if tortured long enough, will tell you whatever to wish to hear.

Where this leads...

The rule of law is devalued when it deals in facts and ignores the truth. The fact of the matter may be a rash word, issued under duress. Gather enough of these inconvenient facts and the truth of a good life lived in tolerant harmony with others is buried and forgotten. Only the fabricated facts of the ‘hate’ remains. This is important because the truth is being denied on a daily basis. I’m not just defending David Starkey here; I’m speaking out for all of us.

Sinister or Sense?

David Attenborough says we should curb some of the excesses of capitalism. I think he’s right. He says that those that have a great deal, should, perhaps, have a little less. I think he’s right. His words: "We are going to have to live more economically than we do. And we can do that and, I believe we will do it more happily, not less happily. And that the excesses the capitalist system has brought us, have got to be curbed somehow." I think he’s right.

The chatterers are railing against the UN agenda to ‘build back better’. I think that is right, too. As an ambition would you prefer to build back worse? They also point to the ‘massive conspiracy’ that is Agenda 21, a non-binding action plan from way back in 1992 that is so far, two whole decades past its target date to achieve global sustainable development. As a sinister plot to rule the world it is pretty poor, given that it will also miss its current optimistic deadline of 2030. So much for all-powerful elites, eh?

How can it not be right to wish for a more equitable world, one where developed companies do not relentlessly pillage the third world; one where we all give a little for the common good? And for all the gnashing of teeth The Great Reset is no Machiavellian plot to subjugate, rather is an injunction to curb some of our excesses. If you are on the breadline it is not aimed at you. If you are self-sufficient it is not aimed at you.

But if you are a rapacious super-consumer who disproportionately eats up resources with an arrogant sense of entitlement it may be aimed at you. If anything, then, the great reset disproportionately affects the very people its opponents rail against on a daily basis. You and I are impotent against the grotesquely wealthy, the egregiously powerful, so isn’t it a good thing that world leaders (who are not these wealthy and powerful people in the main) are taking a stand?

It would only ever be conjecture to imagine a world where nobody has an excess until everybody has a sufficiency; that world will never exist. Our species survived and evolved because of greed, lust, desire to succeed; strip that out of our DNA and we cease to be human; we are back in the forests, grubbing about just to survive. It’s just a shame that the instinct which ensured our success also inculcates envy.

Humans thrive on competition, both directly and vicariously. And the very best vicarious success is that which you achieve via your offspring. People might agree to an equality pact, but they will break it in a heartbeat if it gives their kids a head start. Who wants their kids to be average? (There are several types of average but none of them are desirable. Nobody want to be the median and only the unthinking dullard wants to be the mode. The alternative is just mean. 😉)

This man is not your enemy

So what it boils own to appears to be this: conspiracy of my guys to achieve what I believe in = good; conspiracy of others to an end with which I disagree = bad. Also my conspiracy is not a conspiracy, but their aims, by whatever means, most definitely is a conspiracy. I think that’s the reality; I think that’s the sane view. Occam’s Razor tells you that new-world-order cabals couldn’t organise a piss up in a pub; this has been confirmed time and again. David Attenborough wants a better world? What’s so sinister about that?

Mental State

Pull yourself together, pull your socks up, man up and get on with it… While not decrying all self-diagnoses of mental illness, the majority of people now openly talking about their inner wellbeing would probably benefit greatly from ‘a good talking to’. The nebulous endeavour of exploring the mental landscape struck gold when Sigmund Freud made psychology into an opportunity to make easy money by exploiting the natural human propensity towards dissatisfaction.

No tools, no heavy plant or machinery and no troublesome employees are necessary, and in many cases, it seems, little in the way of any formal objective training is insisted upon. Incline your head thoughtfully to one side, murmur the occasional non judgmental ‘I see’ and sit back as your cash cows pour out their identikit psychobabble. Repeat back to them their own assessment of their condition, reinforce the need to repeat the process at the same time next week and trouser the moolah.

Of course, this is a caricature of a part of the mindscape mining profession, but it is the most visible, most accessible and arguably the most harmful sector of the mentally-industrial complex. The Talking Cure, it strikes me, gives licence to the self-indulgent therapy culture to let the weak talk themselves ever weaker. Everybody experiences unhappiness, loneliness, occasional helplessness, grief and anguish; you wouldn’t be normal if you didn’t. But a kick up the arse would often be better medicine than prolonging the state.

Worse is the way that perfectly normal, universal, small sufferings are labelled, dressed up and sold back to the patient as some form of licence to continue demanding attention. As a result, those who can afford it (and many who can’t) spend years, decades even, engaged in a process that first validates and then exacerbates the condition for which they sought counsel in the first place.

The Covid Crisis has given people who already needed little excuse the licence to talk even more openly about their own personal mental health, a subject which was once, like religion and politics, verboten at the civilised dinner table. But if talk about it we must let’s get real. The way things are going with scarcely a day going by without some cry for ever more funding to treat the mental state of the nation, we may soon the rent-seekers in the ‘poor me’ trade competing with the burgeoning and ever-fragmenting grievance culture.

Can we really survive as a nation if the only people making money are those doing so by perpetuating the harm they undoubtedly cause. Give a man a fish and he’ll fry up some chips. Tell a man he can’t fish because his daddy didn’t love him and he’s already had his chips. It’s like taking candy from a baby – a great, big baby – and the country churns out more with each generation.

As I said, I don’t wish to decry those who genuinely need help. But to divert ever more resources to salve the self-inflicted mental wounds of those who merely seek attention looks to me like a one-way street to pitiful dependence on others; the very opposite of what you should wish for your children. So, if you have a friend who is weepy, filled with despair, anxious that the virus stalks them like a wraith… give them a slap, from me.

Thoughts of an Angry Gammon

The intended insult ‘gammon’ is usually accompanied by the invocation of an angry person, screwed up by hatred and unable to process a world in which black people aren’t merely servants. This is funny. It is funny because it so grotesque a caricature that even Spitting Image would reject it as facile and it is funnier still because so many angry young people actually believe it.

There they are, huffing and puffing, going red in the face and looking quite gammony as they chant their slogans and jab their pointy fingers and raise their black power salutes, while kneeling before their new masters. Hey, young people will believe anything, right? But belief in false prophets is, sadly, not confined to callow youth; plenty of older folk have gone corona crazy as they try to make sense of their current, temporary state of being.

The coalescence of all their suspicions, the apotheosis of all their tinfoil hattery is the out-in-the-open conspiracy of the World Economic Forum and ‘The Great Reset’. Oh. Come on! Have you seen their handy little infographic (below)? Fuck me, that’s going to take some joining up! But just apply that well know razor to the actions of our current government. The same people who think it is being controlled by extra-governmental forces are also critical of its farcical incompetence. I’d put it to you that if some all-powerful organ was really pulling the strings, the marionettes would at least be dancing in time.

Ah, but that’s exactly what they want you to think, say the Resetters (everything has to have a label these days). They want you to believe it’s clumsy rather than coordinated. And then, as if this somehow validates their supranational control theory, they point to Sweden which did the opposite of what most European countries have done. This is as sophisticated a level of doublethink as employed by the practitioners of Critical Race Theory which simultaneously posits that both racists and anti-racists are racists… as long as they are white.

I sit back and laugh at all of this because, while organisations like the WEF might have high and mighty ambitions and BLM may think that by stoking the race wars they will somehow create tolerance and light, ultimately it is down to fallible humans to bring about change. And this they will do as they always do not by combining forces in some great global crusade, but by individually exploiting opportunities that come their way.

And anyway, so what if the powerful want to create a better world? What’s not to like? If their methods are excessive you will resist. If their ideals are not yours you will reject them. And please (oh, please!) stop referring to 1930s Germany every time you want to validate your fears. What am I doing to make the world a better place? Well, for one, I’m not spending my time jumping aboard the latest hoaky bandwagon and panicking.

When you all come back to your senses don’t worry, all your usual gripes and grievances will still be there to wallow in. If you hated Boris Johnson before you will still hate him later. If you think that Extinction Rebellion are a bunch of unemployable unwashed louts then the soap dodgers will still annoy you. The only thing that will be reset will be your level of angry and that will dissipate once you put down your placards.

This all looks simple enough...

But I do see, now, the simple utility of bread and circuses. Lockdown has given too many people with too easily stimulated imaginations plenty of incentive to make mischief. And far too many, with too easily suggestible sensibilities have followed them. Following the breadcrumb trail to grandma’s candy cottage has made some of you quite giddy with the excitement of a new, imaginary enemy to rail against. Help is at hand, however; I hear the coming vaccine will contain a powerful sedative which will render you compliant and quite, quite content.

Right Again

Remember, when you were a kid, if you repeated a word often enough it just became a noise; a meaningless sound that you could make but no longer conveyed any meaning? The same thing happens with meaningless hyperbolic usage which decrees that all news events are billed as tumultuous, and leaders are furious, or stunned. A resignation from cabinet leaves a government in shock, in crisis, and the PM responds in fury. If it was your kids using this sort of language you would laugh, but it’s not the kids, is it?

When Margaret Thatcher dragged the axis of British politics back towards the centre, towards what most people really think, the left screeched in fury [see what I did there?] and called her Hitler, when it was actually ex-Labour voters who put her into Downing Street. Disillusioned by the unions’ failure to get Britain working, with their muscle flexing strike action and combative language, they turned to somebody who spoke directly to them.

Be aspirational, own your own home, inspire your kids to do better, strive to be independent of state aid, earn and save and have a happy retirement and be able to look back and recognise what you had achieved for yourself. Nobody should be able to order you to strike, or insist you vote for a particular party. Britain had, for centuries, been a truly free country and nobody was called right wing merely for wanting to get ahead.

But since then we have drifted ever leftward and accepted, almost without any resistance, curbs on our freedoms, principally our freedom to say what we think and accept the consequences. There is a fatal flaw in being centrist and that is a reluctance to see ourselves as victims, and as a result we have no appetite for mass demonstrations, or to push our perfectly reasonable beliefs onto others. But on the left, the appetite for revolution grows stronger even as time continues to reveals evidence whatsoever for socialist success.

Looking out for number one is a trait of all species, but only one species gives it a name. They call it ‘far-right’ and every news station prefaces every story about any character not of the left or centre as far-right. Thus, non-communist agitators are far-right terrorists, institutions that represent the tax-paying classes are far-right think tanks, and anybody leading a party that advocates free speech is a far-right politician.

This morning it’s the ‘far-right AFD Party’ in Germany, presumably because they include the name of their country in their party moniker. Patriotism is not an attribute recognised by the left; unconstrained by borders, the left just hates anybody who isn’t them. The left in the USA are gleefully anticipating Donald Trump’s Covid death, or else claiming it is a political ruse to avoid debate. Either way, it looks to me like the left behaving exactly as they accuse the right, or centrists, of behaving.

To anybody with a sense of perspective the repeated use of ‘far-right’ has become a meaningless background noise, signalling only that the following debate, news story, discussion, interview comes pre-packaged with bias. Even to be impartial now is deemed to be a form of political activism, by which tortuous route the meticulously even-handed Andrew Neil is now labelled by many on the left as a far-right enemy of reason.

The far right - improving your lives.

So, yeah, call me an extremist for not wanting to pay even more of my hard-earned into a rapacious system which only ever wants me to give more while watching them piss it straight into the economic drain of black-eco-gender matters. See, I’m no monster, but I really don’t give a shit that you are unhappy with your lot in life. Live and let live was our mantra; if you think that is far right then your problems are way bigger than you imagine.

Look into my eyes

Look into my eyes, says the hypnotist. Breathe deeply and slowly…. Your eyelids are feeling heavy; don’t fight it. Let yourself relax as you sink into a deep sleep. When you wake up you will believe you are a chicken. No, wait, that’s old hat; let me think. Yes, listen to my voice as I take you on a journey… when you wake up you will believe… almost anything I tell you. The soporific tones continue until, “One, two, three, you’re awake!”

Is this what they mean when they say, ‘wake up’? When they instruct you to read some history, or educate yourself, or send you a string of links before blocking you and thus ‘winning’ the argument? Following the instructions has led them to some dark places where uncertainty meets suspicion and suspicion meets the unassailable truth of consensus. If everybody I interact with believes a thing then, ergo, that thing must be true.

So, if you wish, Margaret Thatcher said ‘there is no such thing as society’ and Michael Gove said ‘we’ve had enough of experts’. The Prime minister is a racist who wrote of picaninnies and watermelon smiles and David Icke is a new saviour, walking among us to spread the truth and light the way. If you carefully select your soundbites and studiously avoid the stark and complete truth then you will eventually follow your hypnotist’s words.

Except there is no hypnotist – that would be a conspiracy theory of chucklesome proportions – there is only you and the people you listen to… and possibly the voices in your head. When you join the dots it is best to use a blunt instrument; the thicker the marker pen, the easier it is to make connections between unrelated facts. And how do you know they are facts anyway? I do see the irony of my warning, but blog posts are hardly peer-reviewed evidence, are they?

But in recent years even the peer review process has been brought into disrepute as ‘cancel culture’ has injected partisan biases and sought to discredit perfectly reasonable theses while legitimising favoured narratives. If you are suffering due to the restrictions during the Covid panic, naturally you want somebody to blame; and if you are already predisposed to see the dark fingers of globalists in every pie, you will lap up the latest loony conjecture as cast-iron proof.

“It’s all about control. It is coordinated by the World Economic Forum. It is ‘the great reset’. The tests are deliberately engineered to show positives where no virus exists. George Soros and Bill Gates are paying to indoctrinate and vaccinate your children. They are creating a world of compliant slaves, chipped and branded… and owned. Wake up, man! See the plot in everything you observe. BLM, Antifa, Hate-no-Hope, XR, the anti-maskers… this is the people’s resistance!”

Good grief, get a grip. Do you even hear yourselves? William of Ockham must be turning in his grave. The principle holds true that given two explanations of events, the one which requires the smallest number of assumptions, the smallest number of dots to join, is by far the most likely to be correct. A machine composed of the greatest number of moving parts is far more likely to break down than an altogether simpler mechanism. It’s the same with theories.

You will fall into a deep sleep - Oh, the irony!

The more connections you have to make to arrive at your conclusions, the less likely it is that your conclusions will withstand scrutiny. The more people that are involved in a plot, the less likely it is that the plot remains concealed and unfoiled. And the more apparently open a conspiracy is the less likely it is to be an actual conspiracy. Just as evolution is elegantly simple and a million times more likely than the impossibly complex theory of divine creation, isn’t it far more likely that the major force at work here is not conspiracy, but cock-up?