🎵 Ohhhhhh Jacob Rees-Mogg ... 🎶

It is a depressing indictment of British politics that the left has emotional but untrue articles of faith on its side, and the right has totally capitulated to the forces of statism and authoritarianism.

Jeremy Corbyn has shaken off most of his dusty geography teacher image and is now becoming a polished media performer. His hideously adoring acolytes greet his every utterance as the profound words of some venerable sage, and go round chanting "Tory scum" and "hang the Tories" wherever they go. And it's not an idle threat, I believe that if they do come to power, there will be "justifiable" violence. If someone doesn't die, it'll be lucky.

For those of us who have a job and better things to do than gather every bloody protest march, the pickings are slim. "Anyone but May" was my message to the world when the Tories were picking a leader, and really, could anyone have done a worse job in front of an open goal than she has? She should have absolutely stomped Jeremy Corbyn into the ground, instead she gave him credibility and made him look prime ministerial by comparison.

And her policies are equally repulsive. Mayism is an awful hodgepodge of big state nannyism and nonsensical market intervention. Honestly, when lefties are pointing out that Help To Buy is a terrible idea and Tories think it's the answer, we have gone through the looking glass.

It all came to a head for me when Jacob Rees-Mogg was accosted by a bunch of Corbynista thugs at a Conservative Party Conference fringe event. He calmly spoke plain words of common sense to the idiot who was screaming at him. He told him some calm facts. He pointed out that someone's policies did not inherently make them a bad person, just someone with a different view. I'd love to say it was a Damascene conversion, but it won't be. Shabbir Lakha will doubtlessly go on to great depths as a third-rate politician, knowing righteously in his heart that only Corbynistas know the true path to enlightenment and anyone who disagrees with them deserves to swing from a tree.

How has it come to this? How have blood-thirsty, thuggish, middle-class Corbynistas come to be so devout? Why does no-one on the right have any useful riposte or any balls? How has a backbench politician become a media star for just calmly pointing totally reasonable and sensible things out to a screaming buffoon? Why does the screaming buffoon now have a media presence?

I don't want "Moggmentum". I don't want a leadership cult politician running the show, of either stripe. I was calm, confident competence. I want opposing views to be heard, discussed and tolerated. I don't want this underlying threat of violence that underlies so much of our politics today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg might well hold some awful views, but the people shouting at him hold even worse views. There isn't a politician out there who doesn't hold some awful views in someone's opinion. In my opinion, they all hold awful views. So maybe someone who can actually calmly speak in the face of thuggery, keep calm and have manners is all we can hope for.

Can we have more of this from politicians, please?

Anti-Communism Article Misses The Point

I read, with some enthusiasm, this article on the evils of communism.

Marx’s philosophy promised to bring about universal equality, full liberation, and worldwide community. Marxism vowed to fully conquer nature, relieving the human race of scarcity, contingency, alienation, and anxiety. Marx’s aspirations were so striking that vast numbers of people, including Solzhenitsyn, committed themselves to bringing them into being.

Indeed, it is apparent that the aspirations of Marxism are possibly even more utopian that the most virulent anarcho-capitalism. But the article bothered me. Rather than just nodding my head at having my preconceptions stroked, I felt uncomfortable with some of the arguments and conclusions.

The Gulag Archipelago was more than a history of wrongdoing. Tyrants have existed throughout history, but the magnitude of Stalin’s ferocity was unparalleled. Why did people obey a maniac? How could human beings be so cruel? Marx claimed that once the Revolution occurred, there would be no need for the state. As a result, Marxists made no provision for limitations on government or checks on ambition, hoping instead that History would ameliorate conflict. When Stalin took over leadership of the Party, Solzhenitsyn shows, communists could not discern whether he was a psychopath or represented the true direction of progressive history. They were helpless to oppose his ruthless commands.

I struggle to accept that Stalin was any more of a tyrant, any more ferocious than Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao. But more than that, I am confused at the idea that communists could not discern his ruthlessness and were helpless to oppose it. People always have that option. Indeed, many people who opposed Stalin wound up in the gulags for doing so. They just weren't good enough at it.

But anyway, this wasn't the crux of my annoyance.

Solzhenitsyn displays with great force that Marxist ideology motivated both Stalin and his followers to perpetrate the greatest inhumanity in history. Marxists’ goals are idealistic but implausible. Human beings cannot be completely free; they need government to restrain their baser instincts. (Emphasis is mine)

This is where I call bollocks.

Marx said that come the Revolution, the state would wither and die, so having "the" Revolution and bringing into life a Marxist state would kill off the said Marxist state. But that is the opposite of how bureaucracy works. The biggest flaw in every implementation is not that Marxism doesn't provide for a way to restrain "baser instincts", it's that it provides for no limitations on government. Indeed, in every Marxist implementation, the state has spread like a cancer to the judiciary and every other aspect of society. This is the central failure in the Marxist view: the state is a cancer that needs to be kept in check and Marxist societies do nothing to stop it, which is why they always wind up needing fences to keep people in, why they always end up as totalitarian hellholes.

"Socialist" states may well implement more collectivist economic and other policies, but they do maintain independent judiciaries and other means to keep the state in check. I suspect that if this independence ever corrodes sufficiently due to "groupthink" and bad appointments, these states will shortly collapse into totalitarianism.

The more socialist or Marxist a state is, the more power that accrues to the executive. The greater the power or potential power available, the bigger the arsehole it attracts. This is why totalitarianism and socialism or Marxism go hand in hand. It isn't a coincidence that every Marxist country has ended with swathes of dead people. Poor economics may be a factor, but the truth is an untrammelled state is a very desirable target for a psychopath. And having all that power then leads to it being used at the whim of a madman.

I'll go out on a limb here and say every Marxist state is doomed to oppression, slaughter and eventual collapse. Sorry, Marxists. Your man was wrong about many things, but this is the one that leads to the gulag.

Update: I just found this Mises article which, while aiming to prove that Nazism and Bolshevism are both socialist, also fleshes out why socialism leads to totalitarianism.

The high moral ground on the left

Well, it's no surprise that Saint Jezza is cleaning up with a certain sector of the body politic. For those whose hearts swell in righteous anger at the murderous, sub-human, cruel and vile Tory; those who like nothing more than a big march through a metropolis and those who feel that it's only good and fair to terrify baristas on minimum wage and bank staff trying to get through the day by smashing windows, throwing trash around and burning things, Saint Jezza is in fact the perfect inspiration.

A kindly-looking, avuncular man who has followed his own moral code all his life, with a belief in the correctness of the ends justifying the means, he has set an enthusiastic and adorable example to thousands of acolytes. For example, his belief in the cause of Palestinians has allowed him to justify turning a blind eye to overt and covert anti-Semitism wherever it may find him. His belief in the cause of a unified Ireland allowed him to ignore the ruthless murders and maiming of innocent people.

Lately, his belief in the non-existence of the Srebrenica massacre meant that it was cool to spend the dinner on the evening of the anniversary of this ghastly slaughter scoffing pizza with a vocal Srebrenica massacre denier.

On the anniversary of the massacre. Let that sink in. I mean, if Theresa May did something like that, the outrage on the left would be able to power London for weeks.

But because Saint Jezza has always been on the right side of history, it's all good. His morality is unsullied by the fact that he's forever hanging out with murderers, terrorists and people with the most hideous of views. His blithely ignoring open Jew-hatred on Press TV, Iran's state broadcaster - that's Iran, that kills people for being gay - in exchange for money, is nothing of import.

John McDonnell and Saint Jezza earn proper fat cat salaries, just like Len McCluskey, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history. They all earn their money literally being parasites on the working man, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history.

(We will ignore for the moment the slight issue of revisionism transforming things like "overt support for an IRA by any means necessary" into "a vital part of the peace process" when we talk about the "right side of history".)

We are already seeing Stalinist putsches of soft-left MPs, for not toeing the line sufficiently. I'm sure Saint Jezza would never ask for such things, but he's not exactly falling over himself to stop it, is he? He isn't even Secretary General, er, Prime Minister, and already Labour is behaving like a Stalinist party.

Because the ends justify the means.

So here we are. Saint Jezza's fans are clearly quite comfortable with all these things.

They also believe "if you are not with us, you are against us," therefore if you're not an uncritical worshipper of Saint Jezza, you are sub-human and not worthy of civilised discourse. You're a Nazi. You can be, should be and probably will be subject to physical violence.

Of course, worst of all are the venal, Blairite traitors on the soft-left. Their ideological impurity is a stain on the left, that must be expunged even more vigorously than the evil Tory scum.

For those of us on the right, being regarded as sub-human by people on the left is nothing new. Their astonishing arrogance in knowing that their political beliefs make them morally superior has been a source of endless insulting behaviour in the past. Of course, now that the most active and virulent form of left-wing politics has taken over, it's a schadenfreude treat to see Blairites who used to have exactly the same attitude (sans the violence, of course) discover what it's like to be regarded as sub-human by a thug with a different opinion.

And these people are, in their hearts, thugs. I make no apologies to any Labour voters I offend. You regard violence as an acceptable form of political bargaining. If you didn't, you wouldn't have voted for someone who says emollient things but does not do anything to stop Jew-hatred, violence or abuse.

If you're hard-left, at least you're being congruent with your beliefs. This doesn't make you a good human being, though.

If you're soft-left and you voted Labour at the last election, I can only describe you as a self-hating, tribalist moron. Your party hates you more than it hates the Tories. Your blind adherence to "I must vote Labour" is self-defeating stupidity.

Look at the spread of abuse, violence and hatred in politics. Look hard at yourself. If you think that actively hating someone or abusing or committing violence on them for their political beliefs is somehow OK or if you voted for these people, then you're all the problems with society today. You personally. It's not "capitalism" or "free markets" or "bankers" or "Tories" or "libertarians" or "evil right-wing media". You have no right to look down at anyone. You have no moral high ground. Your beliefs or your blind loyalty to a party are poisonous and dangerous.

It's you.

You are the problem.

Jez and Diane

A little ditty 'bout Jez & Diane
Two communist kids growing up in that Lahndahn
Jez he's gonna be a politician like,
Diane debutante on the back seat of Jez's bike
Rollin' round like Guevaras in Germany's east
Diane sitting on Jez's lap
Got his hands between her knees
Jez he says:
"Hey, Diane, let's run off behind a shady tree
Dribble off those Marx and Sparx
Let me do what I please"
Saying oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Sayin' oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Now walk on
Jez he sits back, collects his thoughts for a moment
Scratches his head, and does his best Stalin
Well, now then, there, Diane, we ought to run off to the east
Diane says:
"Baby, you ain't missing nothing"
But Jez he says:
"Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh yeah
He says: "life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh, let it rock, let it roll
Let the little red book come and save my soul
Holdin' on to sixteen as long as you can
Change is coming 'round real soon
Make us woman and man
Oh yeah, life goes on
A little ditty 'bout Jez and Diane
Two communist kids doin' the best they can

(with sincere apologies to John Mellencamp)

WTF?

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
-- The Joker

I've no idea what is happening to people on the left. Since Brexit and the election of the Cheeto Chimp, their butthurt has been spectacularly entertaining. But now they're starting to seriously unravel.

Apparently, it's perfectly OK to now go around punching people just because they have the wrong kind of odious views. Richard Spencer has been extremely careful NOT to call for violence or genocide, though there is little doubt that his views are racist and vile. Unfortunately, they are within the law, the boundaries of which have been set by progressives for decades. So despite him being a very nasty piece of work, he is a legally nasty piece of work. When did it become socially acceptable to go around punching people for perfectly legal points of view? Especially when "your side" has set the limits of tolerance?

There are all sorts of things that I can see going on from here. Firstly, I can see progressives being punched by thuggish neo-nazis at protests. What will lefties say then? Secondly, I can see it escalating beyond sucker punches into beatings, knifings, shootings. Thirdly, I can see innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed. Why shoot up a school when you can mow down a pussy march? Or mow down the accompanying counter-protest?

Assaulting people who are within the law is never acceptable, no matter how odious their views. Assaulting people outside the law shouldn't actually be acceptable to people who believe in statism, either. That's the violence you outsource to the state.

Oh, and while we're talking about "assault", guess who defined shoving someone as an assault? That would be progressives. So don't be surprised or macho or pious when your definitions are used against you.

Yeah, you're upset. Yeah, your weltanschauung has ruled the roost for your entire lifetime. But things have changed and now the wrong people are getting their turn. Now you'll get to see how they've felt: mocked, marginalised, their views laughed at and belittled. Maybe, instead of going round punching people, you can learn from this and see that your arrogance and self-righteousness made a large chunk of the population feel like you feel. Maybe next time your team runs the show, you should be a little more conciliatory and a little more tolerant.

You never know, it might actually win people over, rather than alienating them.

You're doing it wrong...

Everybody is blaming the wrong people for the "weakness" of our Brexit strategy. Let us rewind a little.

In January 2013, David Cameron gave a speech in which he committed to an in/out EU referendum if the Tories won in 2015. This should have put this on everybody's radar. If you trade with the EU or are responsible for implementing EU regulation, this would affect you.

In 2015, the Tories won, much to everyone's amazement. This should have been the alarm klaxon. How did Cameron improve his position, despite his milquetoast record? It was the promise of the referendum.

At this point, people should have started making serious plans to cope with a possible Leave win. And the people who would face the most immediate consequences would be lawmakers. The people who should have been preparing for a possible Leave win are the civil service.

Do you believe that ANY minister actually has a proper grasp of their remit? Of course they don't. They are reliant on briefings prepared by their department. Do you think a minister would or could decide on their own how to put in place Brexit? It would never happen. No, the mandarins and their lackeys would come up with their strategy. They would create a narrative so that what they wanted sounded like the minister's views. The minister is their human shield.

The civil service is Europhile, if only for pragmatic reasons. The UK has lobbied for some of the most draconian EU regulation. Are you aware of what your MEP actually votes on? Unlike our laws, EU regulations are opaque and almost unreported. This means that civil servants can hide behind the EU.

Our civil service gold plates them on implementation. No other country implements EU regulations to this extent. The civil service has also taught us to believe that we have to accept EU regulations. We can't ignore them, or part apply them. Other countries do!

The reason for any bureaucracy is to feed and grow itself. The British civil service is the very acme of this. The EU is a very useful cover for the civil service to grow. You could almost see it as rent-seeking by bureaucrats. They've become too lazy to justify their plans and aspirations to the public. It's much easier to lobby the EU and do a deal in a smoky room.

The civil service sabotaged Cameron's half-assed negotiations with the EU. They removed any meaningful compromises from Cameron's wish list to make it easy for the EU. This make him feel like he got everything he asked for.

The civil service made no plans whatsoever for a Leave win. They had no intention of of leaving the EU. They still have no intention of leaving the EU. They are fighting a desperate rearguard action to try and stop it ever happening.

The resources of the civil service are being brought to bear: briefings, research (that we pay for!) and ready access for pro-EU journalists. They are also scrambling to come up with a half-assed plan for Brexit. It would not surprise me in the least if some last-minute excuse came along.

The civil service has already briefed that we're not losing any EU regulations. They are being cast into law, so that their precious empires are not destroyed, the way they should be.

Furthermore, David Cameron ran away like a faggot when he lost. He had promised to put in place Brexit if he lost the vote. He didn't. He ran away and left the mess to someone else.

Shouting at Boris and Gove for not having a plan is fatuous. They had no authority or remit to make such a plan. If they had a plan, the civil service would have ignored it or briefed against it.

Shouting at Theresa May is stupid. She inherited this situation. She wouldn't be making the plans anyway.

No. Look at the faceless mandarins if you want to be angry with someone for the lack of Brexit preparation.

Fuckface Von Clownstick

I must admit, I didn't see that coming. Mind you, I didn't think Brexit would happen either. AND I was hoping for Scottish independence.

I recently read an analysis of inequality that made a sort of sense to me. It doesn't matter how much inequality there is. It matters how much inequality people perceive. This is why most Americans are comfortable with inequality. They see it as an inspiration or aspiration. British people are much more disdainful about wealth and so prefer to redistribute wealth.

I'm not sure I see wealth as an inspiration or aspiration, but inequality doesn't bother me.

But it does strike me that you could make the same argument about democratic inequality. There is a large section of society that feels like it doesn't matter how they vote. The same old bien-pensant shit keeps on coming out of government.

Of course, a large section of society is comfortable with the same old bien-pensant shit. They're the ones that vote. They hold earnest discussions with their peers. They tweet pious messages of virtue, solidarity and instruction.

Along came the Scottish independence referendum. An unusual opportunity to effect real change. And the Scots leapt at it. Of course, the case for independence was too optimistic. The Scots declined the opportunity.

The Brexit referendum was an appalling display of the worst of British politics. Neither side made a compelling case. The unique history of Britain means Britons are sceptical about the European project. I think Britons don't trust the EU. The ongoing accusations of racism and xenophobia are wide of the mark. Of course there are some bigots who are anti-EU. But most Britons just don't trust the opaque, rapacious EU. I don't think claims of money for the NHS swayed a single person.

But this wasn't just about the rumbling mistrust of the EU. This was a chance for British people who feel like their votes don't matter to change things. To upset the bien-pensant apple cart.

And so to the US election. I'm pretty sure there were some racists and xenophobes who voted for Trump. I'm pretty sure he's a prick. But although he's moneyed and a gobshite, he's not a politician. I think a lot of people looked at the Clinton machine and thought: that's going to be more of the same. The chattering classes who like the way things are going just assumed she'd walk it. But it turns out that enough people are sick of the same-old, same-old to change it.

Of course, Trumpism won't change anything. It won't herald a new white supremacist era. It won't lead to walls. I don't think it will lead to any significant drained swamps. I don't think he'll sit on the the Big Red Button by mistake.

I hope Trump's election will make politicians and the commentariat think. Especially about how they treat people they just dismiss now.

#Brexit - some thoughts

So,the unthinkable has happened and Britain has voted out. Already, our betters and wisers are shouting the odds about how we were sold a pack of lies, a pro-EU narrative from pro-EU media is being built on the handful of Leave voters with buyer's remorse (which happens at every election).

The Leave leaders weren't expecting to win, but despite being barred from access to the civil service or any of the perks of the incumbent Remainers, they're now being called on for answers.

This despite them not actually having the power to, you know, do anything.

One unfortunate side effect, and it's pointless to deny this, is that racists are using the result to become bolder. They feel that because the country voted out and because some of that was anti-EU-migration, they are now justified in hurling abuse at all foreigners. To claim that Brexit somehow provoked this is stupid, but it's equally stupid to pretend that a racist might not now feel empowered to spew their shit. It does, however, prove that political correctness and decades of no-platforming and relentless anti-racism have actually achieved fuck all.

It's also true that there has been some nervousness regarding the markets and the Pound. However, I lay this squarely at door of the kack-useless Dishface, who immediately resigned, while Gidiot went into hiding. This did more to upset the markets, which fear uncertainty (although it's also where money is to be made!) than the actual Brexit. If Dishface had resigned after saying "This is the plan.." I'm fairly sure the markets wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

Anyway, it turns out that there is a fairly simple way out of this that will almost certainly satisfy no-one completely, but will keep Remainers happy (apart from federast ultras) and ensure that those (like me) who believe that EU governance is an issue, while wishing to retain the good things like free trade and free movement. The Norway option seems to be on the table and would be a good compromise. And believe it or not, I do think EU free movement is a good thing.

If our civil service made EU citizens who want to come here subject to the same rules we have if we want to settle there, there probably wouldn't be the same level of antipathy towards the EU - so it it might be a good time to rethink this. (I don't think it's great, I'd rather the EU adopted our approach and just guaranteed the right to live, but that's not going to happen!)

The sight of grown men and women leaping on every bit of bad news and blaming it on Brexit and talking down the country is very nearly as upsetting as feeling it's ok to be a racist cunt, so can everyone just please fuck off now?

Oh, and blogger is shit on an iPad, so any mistakes or clumsy phrasing you point out: go fuck yourself, yeah?

I'm sorry, what??

Sometimes, it's the little things in big stories that make you stop:

Bimlenbra Jha, chief executive of Tata Steel UK, told the Business select committee that the UK had "structural weaknesses" that made the UK steel industry uncompetitive.

Business rates and high energy costs were top of the list.

On energy, he said that if Tata was operating in Germany, its energy bill would be £40m a year lower. The Tata chief defended the company's decision to put the business up for sale saying that the company and its shareholders could not continue to bleed. The business is estimated to be losing £1m a day.

OK, let's break this down. The civil service think man-made climate change is a big thing, therefore the government has instituted massive energy taxes to discourage people from making stuff that needs a lot of energy. Making steel takes a fucktonne of energy. Closing down Port Talbot will be a non-trivial step towards meeting our civil service approved emission reduction targets.

In other words, whether or not you agree with climate change being a thing, and our fault, and something that we can fix, and are fixing in the right way, the fact of the matter is that saying "tata to Tata" is exactly the the kind of outcome you would expect and want from our climate change policies.

However, despite the fact that it's only Morlocks losing their jobs, of course, there are votes to be had here, so now everyone has to panic and pretend to care. It's the usual fiasco of a planned economy.

Hidden away further down, though, was this little nugget:

Mr Javid said steps had already been taken to help on energy costs with £130m paid out since 2013 to compensate high energy users who incur environmental surcharges.

Just think about that: the glorious state has decided that we need saving from ourselves, so let's make energy more expensive. We start to get saved from ourselves, but suddenly we need to compensate businesses who have to pay the environmental surcharge.

What the actual fucking fuck is that all about? Make someone pay a tax and then give them a fucking handout to say sorry? I'm really dying to know which fucking retarded spastic cunt thought this was a remotely sensible fucking idea.

#Brexit - yea or nay?

Some things we need to bear in mind, before we start:

• I don't think Brexit is going to happen, because the people who count the votes don't want Brexit to happen
• I was calling for Scottish independence, so could the zoomers please fuck off
• I'm not inherently more against a federal government than any other model - in fact, I think federal Britain (as opposed to Britain part of a federal EU) would be a better thing than what we have now.

The obvious thing is: I want Brexit, because it's a layer of government and taxation removed from us. Despite all the pro's of remain and the cons of Brexit, ultimately we would be a bit freer than we are now.

This is not to say that aspects of the EU are not convenient. Visa-free travel, only one currency to worry about, getting jobs abroad easily, etc. - these range from "making your life a bit more convenient" to "genuinely life-changing opportunities".

There is an economic component, too: although we are a nett contributor to the EU and even the money we get back must be used for things the EU wants us to do, so it's probably not allocated well, it cannot be denied that there would be SOME uncertainty upon Brexit. This could lead to at least a short-term economic downturn - I don't know, it does seem more likely than a sudden boom. Both are possibilities though.

And for bleeding hearts, there is the ECHR and Human Rights Act, so hated by the Daily Mail it can't be all bad, especially when you look at Theresa May and her apparent insatiable urge to spy on us and the curiously regular occurrence of miscarriage of justice.

But ... and there are several buts here:

• Underlying the law in most (all?) EU states apart from us is the presumption that anything that is not explicitly permitted, is not permitted at all. Even the presumption of innocence is not standard practice. As convergence comes about, I can see Britain becoming even less free than it currently is.
• Being in the EU makes it exceptionally easy for the unelected and entirely unaccountable REAL government of the UK, the civil service, to push through all sorts of crap that they believe we need and coincidentally builds their little empires and gives them more authority to fuck us around.
• Many of the more invasive and unpleasant EU rules that exist have actually come about at Britain's behest. Somehow, Remainers think this is a reason to stay. But the truth is that Civil Servants really love the EU, because it gives them an "arms-length" reason to implement their shit. If it came out that a civil servant wanted us all spied on or whatever, there'd be an uproar. But because "the EU" wants to implement it, we might grumble but we know we can't convince the rest of Europe to see things our way. So it just happens.
• The opacity of the European Project is something that any fan of good government should worry about. (I'm not a fan of any government, but I realise I'm in a minority!) People are forever confusing the ECHR, EU, European Commission and all the other various arms, legs and other appendages and quangos - it's not just lazy thinking that leads to this. The interaction of election process, finances, accountability and responsibilities of these bodies is largely incomprehensible and way beyond the control of British people - or any other people.

I'm almost certain that even if by some miracle we vote for Brexit, it'll never happen because the civil service will drag its heels and find a million reasons not to do it. And don't think that a Brexit would lead to them rescinding acres of intrusive, hectoring law - that's never going to happen.

If you're still not convinced about the Civil Service, think about the Home Office: how come apparently sane politicians become illiberal Nazis as soon as they enter the Home Office and then become sane, reasonable people when they leave? It's because illiberal Nazis run the Home Office and they control what actually gets put forward and what gets done.

Ever wondered why David Cameron floated policies that got shot down when Gordon Brown was in power? It's because the same guy is actually still in charge and want to see if he can get by with some bullshit he believes we need to live by and he's hoping there won't be a fuss.

Ever wondered why Jeremy Corbyn suddenly backs remain? He's had a chat with a silky mandarin who's told him him in no uncertain terms that if he backs Brexit, he'll never get anything through into law, even if he wins an election.

And that is pretty much why I want Brexit - it's to keep the British Civil Service in check, not because of some xenophobic hatred of foreigners or even a particular belief that the EU is less democratic and accountable than our parliament. Being part of the EU makes OUR bureaucrats less accountable, that's the real danger here.

#FuckParade - no. Just no.

I see lots of people saying either "it's fine to destroy Cereal Killers" or "why pick on Cereal Killers when there's banks or Subway or Starbucks?"
As to the former argument, I don't see that someone who has risked their finances on something as dodgy as a cereal café needs any violent help in going bankrupt. If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. I think my local Portuguese caff sells shit coffee, so I don't buy it. That's the civilised way of doing it. I don't spray "useless barista" on his fucking windows and threaten the sad twats who seem to like his shit coffee.
But the latter argument is far more prevalent, and not just among left-wing thugs looking for ricekrispallnacht. People seem to think that it's OK to vandalise a chain or a bank, because some mythical tax law hasn't been complied with. If you've actually been through Starbucks tax records and you're convinced they've broken the law, report them to HMRC. That's what you're supposed to do. But even if Starbucks HAS broken tax law, a fucking barista has NOTHING to do with it. They're scraping by on a shitty wage and they're not fat cat decision makers. They work hard, deal with twats all day long and don't need threats of violence just because they've taken a job.
If you can't make your argument without threatening innocent people going about their lawful lives, you don't have an argument.
So fuck off and take your cunting parade with you.
Update: credit where it's due

I can only apologise to John Cougar Mellencamp

Little ditty about Jez and Diane 2 London kids in Labour's heartland Jez's gonna be a politics star Diane debutante backseat of Jez's car Suckin' on a chili dog outside the tastee freeze Diane's sittin' on Jacky's lap, he's got his hands between her knees Jez he say, "Hey Diane lets run off behind a shady tree Dribble off those Bobby brooks, let me do what I please" And say a "Oh yeah life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone" Say a, "Oh yeah life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone, they walk on" Jez he sits back reflects his thoughts for the moment Scratches his head and does his best James Dean Well you know Diane, we gotta run of the city Diane says "Baby, you ain't missing nothing Jez he say a "Oh yeah life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone Oh yeah they say life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone" Gonna let it roll 'n' rock Let it roll Let the party vote come on down And save my role Hold on to 16 as long as you can Changes come around real soon Make us women and men Oh yeah life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone Oh yeah they say life goes on Long after the thrill of livin' is gone A little ditty about Jez and Diane Two Labour kids doin' the best that they can

Suddenly, Labour is a meritocracy!

After years and years of enforcing quotas for women and 'people of colour' (and demanding them elsewhere!) the newly socialist Labour Party has provided a shadow cabinet where all the top jobs are white, middle-aged men. Suddenly ardent socialists, who have been calling out "unrepresentative" Tories and others are all in favour of "choosing people who are best qualified" to do the job. Now, I don't mind that the best qualified people get jobs (although it's quite debatable that any MP has any qualification to do any job they get) but then I'm not the one berating others for not meeting some arbitrary made up quota that I think is important. As ever, it's the hypocrisy that offends.

The Downfall of Camila BruceWayneJelly

I'm amazed. So someone who was fêted by a series of Prime Ministers and unaccountable bureaucrats, assisted by over-entitled Beeb management, troughing on taxpayer money, went from being a helpful charity doing important work to an overstaffed, completely unaccountable quango with overly lavish offices dishing out benefits on the whim of the founder?

What did you think was going to happen?

And what do you think is happening at all those other "charities" that exist solely because our tax money is shovelled at them?

Demonisation

It is, of course, that "the left" accuses "the right" of demonising the poor, immigrants, blacks, Asians and the infirm (or whatever the socially acceptable term for these people is, this week).

This is an actual conversation on twitter:

Literally a post made by the social media campaign for a political party representing an entire state. Gross. LINK
-- Tom Nix

@TheTomNix @SpaghettiJesus and?
-- Me

OK, so here we go. I read that link and all I got was "if you hand out stuff, the recipients become dependent on the handouts". I don't think there's any particular controversy in that argument. But if you're looking to be offended, the obvious thing to do is to drag something irrelevant into the point.

@obotheclown @TheTomNix they compared poor people to animals
-- @SpaghettiJesus

@SpaghettiJesus @TheTomNix we’re all animals, last time I looked
-- Me

@obotheclown @TheTomNix yeah but people running for political office tend not to want to insult their voting base on principle.
-- @SpaghettiJesus

I'm afraid that if you go around looking for things to be offended by, it's very difficult not to offend you. I'm frankly astounded by the lengths to which someone will go to be offended. And anyone looking for votes is trying very hard not to offend potential voters.

But watch this...

@obotheclown @TheTomNix of course they're inbred and basically brain dead so object permanence is hard for them.
-- @SpaghettiJesus

Having just accused someone of making a sweeping generalisation that could be considered offensive, the obvious thing to do is to make a sweeping generalisation that could be considered offensive. I mean, right now I'm pretty poor and I didn't take offence at the handouts thing. But if I was an Oklahoman, I'd probably be mildly annoyed at being described as inbred and brain dead because of an accident of birth. You can't really choose where your born, any more than you can choose your skin colour. So where is "the left's" moral high ground now?

Of course, that's just one conversation, but it's one I see quite often:

Left: Tories hate the poor / blacks / immigrants / women

Right: No they don't

Left: Of course they do, look at the Infographic from Labour Eoin / video of Iain Duncan Smith which I'll pretend is him cheering murdering the poor / innocuous comment from David Cameron that I'm going to twist and take out of context.

Etc.

I think that "the left" hate "the right" far more virulently than "the right" hates anyone. "The right" just has a different set of things that they believe is important to make the poor better off than "the left". That doesn't mean they want them dead or ground under heel, it just means that their compassion and reasoning has led them to a different conclusion. This doesn't mean their motives or objectives are evil.

If "the left" genuinely wants to engage and change the way "the right" thinks or behaves, then not blaming them for every evil in the world and ascribing the worst of human nature to their every word, thought and deed is possibly a good place to start.

I'm not holding my breath.

A Greek Tragedy

So, Alex has put up a spirited defence of his nation:

"They have decided to strangle us, whether we say yes or no", said a Greek woman to me yesterday.

"The only choice we have is to make it quick or slow. I will vote "oxi" (no). We are economically dead anyway. I might as well have my conscience clear and my pride intact." 

I can't really argue with the opening lines of his article, but it really is all bloody downhill from there:

At times of financial strain, a country's currency issuer, its central bank, should act as lender of last resort and prime technocratic negotiator. In Greece's case, the European Central Bank, sits on the same side as the creditors; acts as their enforcer.

Well, yes, this is one of the obvious consequences of being a small player in a monetary union. It's one of the many reasons sane people don't want to be part of the Euro.

EU Institutions are now openly admitting that their aim is regime change. A coup d'état in anything by name, using banks instead of tanks and a corrupt media as the occupiers' broadcaster. The rest of Europe stands back and watches. Those leaders who promised the Syriza government support before the election, have ducked for cover. I understand it. They sympathise, but they don't want to be next. They are honourable cowards. They look at the punishment beating being meted out and their instinct is to protect their own. 

I'm sorry, is this a surprise? The EU is all about homogenising Europe to a point where it becomes a trivial exercise to implement a superstate. I don't want to sound like a deranged 'KIPper here, but this is just an inevitable consequence of any bureaucratic organisation, whether it's the Fed, the EU, the civil service, a bank ... bureaucracies always want to grow their fiefdom, their reach and their power. So why wouldn't the EU want a more compliant and obedient partner running Greece? It's not exactly a shock to anyone except the Greeks, apparently. It must be wonderful to have retained childlike naïveté, despite being one of the oldest civilisations in the Western world.

Corruption and tax evasion had been rife for decades. Accounts were falsified in order to facilitate entry into the Euro. Unforgivable economic crimes were committed. These weren't committed by most ordinary people of course - the very people now asked to take on the burden of the follies of our rich oligarchs. Corrupt politicians who passed the country back and forth like a joint were quick to secure their money in Swiss bank accounts. But we must share in a collective responsibility for them. We all knew what was going on and we either became part of it or didn't rebel soon enough or loudly enough.

And having said that, are you now exculpated? You seem to be saying that because you've had a really tough five years, that's undone all the decades of corruption? I don't think so, sunshine.

Those factors are what put us on the front line when the global financial crisis began to unfold within the Eurozone. All those systemic flaws are what made Greece the weak link when the earthquake hit. But we didn't cause the earthquake. We just lived in creaking houses that went down easily. 

Well, yes. And this is what thousands of people (including deranged 'KIPpers) warned would happen. But the world's oldest democracy, and presumably the wisest, still voted in favour of doing so. Possibly because of the decades of normalised, socially acceptable corruption. Who knows?

Greece should have been allowed to default in 2010. Default is a normal part of debt, not some monstrously catastrophic event. Germany has defaulted on its debts four times in the last century. Italy six. Default is reflected in interest differentials. An element of interest on a loan is of course "rent" for using someone else's money, but the reason Germany's government 10y bonds trade at below 1% and Venezuela's at over 24% is not whim. It reflects risk. Removing that risk is the real moral hazard.

But Alex, you can't default if you're part of the Eurozone. And fuck me, no person can reasonably say that this was not immediately apparent when the idea of the Eurozone was floated. Also, is once every 25 years really "normal"?

"Stop whining and pay what you owe." "Nobody forced you to take the loans in the first place." "Why should taxpayers elsewhere pay for your extravagance?" There was some truth to all of those things back in 2010. There is no truth to them now. We were forced to take the loans. That is precisely what happened. We were told "do this for all of us", to avoid contagion. Less than 10% of the "Greek" bailout has gone to Greece. The rest has gone to strengthen irresponsible financial institutions, mainly French and German, which were heavily exposed. 

Call a waaaambulance, please. When a libertarian points out that the main beneficiaries of government intervention and regulation are the incumbent corporate interests, Alex is the first to scoff. Social democrats are very keen on the state running as much as possible, and looking at a very social democratic EU, I can't see why Alex is objecting to social democrats behaving like social democrats always behave, rather than how he thinks they do or should do.

I'm not surprised that 90% of the bailout went to irresponsible banks. This is what the state does, support powerful vested interests at the expense of the taxpayer. How many more times do you need to be slapped in the face with it before you realise that it's the problem, not the fucking solution?

There was no provision within the Eurozone for what happens if market shock creates sudden and dramatic divergence between countries' economic cycles. (Emphasis is mine.) We were no longer individually in charge of basic economic levers like quantitative easing or devaluing our currency - a standard response in those circumstances. Our fates were entangled. We could either devalue the whole of the currency which would help countries severely affected by the crisis or not devalue which would help countries like Germany which were in a more robust position. We were told: "do this and we will look after you". Whatever it takes, said Mario Draghi, to convince Greece to take yet another loan.

Duh. Just remind me who voted Greece into the Eurozone? Did no Greek notice this up front or think it worth mentioning? And did you really think the Germans were going to devalue the Euro for GREECE? For fuck's sake, man!

There are many, many things wrong with the EU: lack of accountability, financial and electoral; overreach; enforced homogeneity and more, but ultimately it suffers most from the disease of control: there is a lot of power for powerful countries to use on less powerful countries. Greece may be the canary in the coalmine for people who want to see where it's going, but I suspect most Federasts are secretly on board with the idea of a European superstate taking it's "rightful" place on the world stage.

This is, however, ultimately a case where both sides need to lose: the Greeks cannot undo decades of dodgy business / tax / ethical culture in a couple of years of austerity and they definitely own the pain of their decision to join the Eurozone with all the consequences, but equally the EU's desire for regime change to suit their corporatist aims is hugely repugnant.

I just wonder whether pro-EU people will defend the EU's behaviour or whether they will admit the mask has slipped a little too much now?

The BAME of our lives

I see that dreadful race hustler (when it's expedient) Yvette Cooper is playing "Diversity" again:

Prior to the last election there was also criticism from within the party that there was a “shameful” lack of BAME candidates in key seats. Labour currently has 23 minority ethnic MPs.

Really? Why does this matter?

With over a million ethnic minority voters choosing the Tories at the last election Labour cannot be complacent. If Labour is not representative of our voters how can we hope to keep their support?

I'm sorry, what? Are you now saying that minorities are so fucking stupid, they'll vote for the racial mix of a party, rather than their policies? If that's how it works, how do you explain George Galloway's previous electoral success?


A million ethnic minority voters voted Tory because a) Ed Miliband was a complete retard and b) Labour's policies were shit. They didn't vote Tory because the Tory party is more representative of their community.

What she's basically saying is "vote for us, and we'll make sure 'your kind of people' get their snouts into the trough, whether they're useless or not".

Well done, Yvette, you patronising, pork-barrel, Westminster-bubble fucktard.

#EndAusterityNow

I see there's some ghastly gathering of unwashed fucknuggets making Westminster smell even worse than usual today. Owen Jones, Russell Brand, Charlotte Church and various other shroud waving shitgoblins and taking time out from their celebrity lifestyles to boost their street cred with the lower ranks.

Apparently, because the actual overall majority of voters didn't vote for the Tories, so the Tories don't have a mandate for their agenda.

76% didn't vote for this Govt - Osborne has no mandate for austerity.  He wants to shrink state not cut deficit #EndAusterityNow #JuneDemo - Caroline Mucus

That's lovely, Cazza, but as was immediately pointed out to her, 71% of the people in Brighton Pavilion didn't vote for her, so is she going to resign out of principle?

Furthermore, as I recall (and I may be wrong, but it's definitely that order of magnitude) something like 61% didn't vote for Blair in his "landslide" and I don't remember this concern for the unrepresented from unwashed lefties back then.

There have been dozens of variations of democracy implemented all over the world, and none of them ever meets with universal approval. But the British state has gradually been centralising control powers over decades, meaning that the blatant disparity between what people want and what they get is becoming more and more overt.

The same thing happened with the Scottish Independence referendum - despite a very clear win, there was a sufficiently large minority who lost out that feel that they haven't been heard.

Yet when I point out that this is always the case in a democracy, that there is always a large chunk of the populace who get fucked over, whatever the result, I always get told that I should join the system and change it from within. I'm told that my sniping from the sidelines does nothing useful.

So today my message to the earnest, the thuggish and the hypocritical who want someone else to pay for everything is this: go become a politician, go change the system from the inside. Your protest marches are no more effective than my blog posts.

Or alternatively, consider the possibility that I may be right: democracy is merely a fig leaf that allows evil Tories to fuck over the poor or kind-hearted Labour to fuck over the poor in a different way.

Ireland takes it up the shitter

It's not final yet, but it looks like the bogtrotters have decided to let pooves, dykes and other assorted perverts and deviants get married.

This is great news, it's entirely unclear to me why only breeders should be allowed the misery and stress of married life. And it's also good that it looks like it will be a clear, unambiguous and wide-spread decision.

However, I do have a couple of reservations:

• what happens if there is a different definition of marriage for straights and queers, like there is in the UK? As far as I'm concerned, if there's not actual equality, then this isn't really any different from civil partnerships.
• why are there different definitions of marriage for different groups of people? Well, you might argue that the definition of sex between straights, gays and dykes is potentially all different, so what constitutes adultery is different. But then I might, as a straight, commit an act that is not adultery in a gay marriage but is adultery in a straight marriage. How is that equality?
• why is the state even involved in defining and restricting what is essentially a private contract between two people? The state doesn't get involved in my business transactions (other than to extort protection money off me!), why the hell should it have anything to do with my love life? People used to let the church run the whole farce, that was no better, but the state's involvement is terrible, as it gives political parties the ability to indulge in social engineering to suit their own agenda

Anyway, here's to the impending misery of bulldykes and shirt lifters in the Emerald Isle.

Cheers!

Isn't democracy wonderful?

So, there we have it, a clear result in favour of being fucked over by Oxbridge PPEs who live 500 miles away. Bargain.

As I said, Salmond didn't want to win, he wanted to panic Westminster into giving him more powers with less accountability. Even though he didn't win, he got what he actually wanted. A very canny and astute politician, to be fair, but does making Salmond happy improve Scotland's situation?

I don't know if I'm just being unduly cynical here, but were the No guys really so unsure of their case that they really believed that handing over free bags of sweeties to Salmond would do the trick? Fuck that. If there was ever proof that the current parliament was populated by vacuous makeweight retards*, this was surely it? You had no plan, nothing more powerful than to bring out a discredited, cowardly ex-Prime Mentalist to make offers that NO FUCKING CUNT HAD VOTED ON?

That's a ringing endorsement of democracy right there.

A further ringing endorsement is that despite it being massively engaged, with a broader plebiscite than usual and huge turnout, the result ultimately disenfranchises nearly half of the Scottish population.

Let's be generous for a moment: let's imagine that all the people voting yes had done detailed research, had genuine aspirations to independence and had a clear, optimistic vision of their future - those people will now never have the chance to exercise that vision. 45% (and possibly more) of the Scottish people will now have to live out their lives with their greatest aspiration as a people, crushed.

Now let's be realistic: one-third of the Yes voters would have voted whatever the SNP suggested, much like one-third of the UK's population would vote for Labour, even if their MP was a massive turd wearing a red rosette. Or John Prescott. One-third of them would have voted as a protest against the Tories, because Thatcher. And the rest would have genuinely aspired to independent Scotland. What would have happened if they'd won?

Which of those scenarios makes a better case for democracy? The case that a large portion (in the UK overall it's generally TWO-THIRDS of us) now live in a situation they didn't want; or the case that unreasoned, unthinking stupidity can make a decision that everyone else has to live with?

*Apologies to retards everywhere.