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.

#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

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 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.

Thoughts on #Mandela (for @kevin_maguire and others)

So, he's gone. Predictably, the sanctimonious bullshit has been dialled up to 11.

One of the most depressing things about it has been the preponderance of left-wing political animals (if not MPs) like Alastair Campbell and Charlie Whelan banging on about meeting him.

Look at mmmeeeeeeEEEEEEE!! Look at me! I met him! I touched him! Behold, he cured my leprosy!

From utter cunts who would mock the shit out of someone saying the Pope had done that.

Equally annoying has been the whitewashing of his history. He was given a fair trial and a fair sentence, even Amnesty fucking International said so. He WAS a terrorist.

He was also a politician upon release, who had some good ideas and equally, some fucking insane ones. Ironically, he replaced a notionally democratic but really one party state with another notionally democratic but really one party state, although to be fair, this was hardly his fault.

He did keep a lid on the widely-expected violent backlash, but today there are more murders of white farmers in SA than there ever were in Zimbabwe.

He did, for a very brief time, largely unite the nation (apart from lunatic neo-nazis and equally lunatic black consciousness marxists, but nothing's going to make those fuckers talk to anyone else!) Ultimately that was down to the cult around his person - he did not make this a lasting legacy.

He did drag South Africa out of the Stone Age in terms of some social liberties, but ultimately the economic policies he introduced replaced the handful of white oligarchs with a handful of black ones while leaving the overwhelming majority of South Africans even worse off than they'd been under the Apartheid regime.

He fucked up royally on crime and let's face it, the corruption of other politicians did not start after he left power.

So his legacy can basically summed as a mixed bag - hardly the amazing result he seems to be associated with.

But really, the worst whole thing about the grief whoring is that people who hold him up as some sort of role-model-y godlike figure display none of the values that they claim to admire in Mandela: that people can change and that you should forgive.

As an example of this: a load of bollocks has been spouted about Dishface wanting to hang Mandela in the 80's. Even if he did (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case), the whole fucking point about lionising Mandela is that he is the model of change for the good, of humility and of reconciliation and forgiveness. We venerate Mandela, an ex-terrorist, because when he got to power he didn't use that power to victimise the people who branded him a terrorist. He changed. He forgave.

Unlike the tolerant, always-correct left. Using the death of a man they claim to admire to score some cheap, political points. Nice one, Kev!

I wish that people who are venerating Mandela would display some of the fucking qualities they claim to admire in him.

Hypocritical Lefty Luvvie Twitter Talibanistas

I shan't go on about Caitlin Moron, who apparently can make all the violent threats, homophobic and ableist jokes or other trolling comments because "context", apparently.

Today I saw someone tweet about Graham Lineham blocking them while he (Graham Lineham) was dishing out abuse. I read the tweets in question and there was no fucking "context" there at all. Lineham was just calling people cunts. Tonight I saw him concur with Frankie "I can dish it out but I'm a big frit girl's blouse when I get it" Boyle saying that if his block button killed people, it would be a nicer place.

(Just revel in the fact there for a moment that the man who made his career out of being offensive wants to kill people who he finds offensive. Jaw-dropping, isn't it?)

I'm sure I could go on (and on and ON) finding other examples of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas if I wanted to, but you get the point.

I'm not really sure how different this is from me calling for the heads of hypocritical lefty luvvie twitter talibanistas (HLLTT's) on pikes, but apparently, when I dish abuse out, it's vile, when HLLTT's do it, it's funny and, y'know, "context".

From my perspective, I don't have a problem with Lineham or Moran or anyone else being abusive in the name of being funny. What I do find unbearable is them smugly pontificating about "abuse" and "politeness" while they do exactly the same things they're describing as being unacceptable and even worse, their armies of cock-sucking windowlickers actually having the temerity to justify it.

Either it's acceptable or it's not, if Moron or Lineham or Boyle can do it, why can't I?

Don't feed the trolls

I know a bit about trolling, I used to be one. I also spent a lot of time on the receiving end of possibly the best troll the internet has ever seen (anyone heard from pneawf lately?)

I was but an amateur, more of a wind-up artist than anything else, and I still am, online and in real life. My favourite TV show is The Mentalist, especially the early ones, because the character is a massive cunt and a wind-up merchant.

But I did learn from some awe-inspiring trolls, which is why I can spot one so easily.

And it annoys the fuck out of me that mongoloid fucktards with IQs of 7 and one track minds spouting mindless abuse get called trolls. They aren't. They are stupid, pointless bullies who don't put the slightest effort into winding people up, they just make shouty threats of violence when they see someone that they think can easily be bullied.

They are no different to Liverpudlians who perceive a slight on Liverpool; like wibbling leftards; like Terminators: they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be bargained with and they will absolutely not stop until they've hounded you off the internet and shut down your voice.

But what they are not, are trolls.

Trolls will put a bit of effort in, will wind you up in several different ways, often without saying an unkind or improper word and leave you raging while chuckling to themselves.

Trolls do not shout mindless abuse.

However, the psychology of dealing with abuse and dealing with trolls is very much the same, and unfortunately it is not in the nature of those being trolled or abused to respond correctly. But it is simple to deal with a troll and probably equally simple to deal with an abuser:

Do not rise to the bait. If you suspect you're being trolled, or you have a shouty abuser on the line: DO NOT RESPOND.

If you don't respond to a troll, it frustrates the fuck out of them and they move on looking for a new target. If someone shouts abuse at you and you don't respond, they will get bored and look for someone who does.

Speaking as someone who has been on the end, ironically, of both the Scouse hate mob AND Old Holborn's pack of windowlickers, I'm quite certain that someone who actually wants you dead, assaulted or raped is not going to warn you - they're just going to do it. All they're trying to do is make you feel scared.

It's simple, it works and it pisses them they hell off. What's not to like?

Can someone please enlighten me?

Right, so as far as I can ascertain, lefties are frothing about the expulsion of Trenton Oldfield, while being horrified that the EDL's Tommy Robinson remains in the country.

Trenton Oldfield is apparently proud of the fact that 500,000 people googled "elitism" after his fucking up something that two teams of people had trained pretty much their whole lives for.

I can therefor only assume that as soon as Tommy Robinson starts drawing attention to Islamic "religious elitism", lefties will be queueing up to beg him to bomb mosques.

Seriously, what is this fucking bullshit? Why is it OK for Trenton Oldfield to "draw attention" to the "damage" that "elitism" is doing to the country, while Tommy Robinson is hated for "drawing attention" to the "damage" that "Islam" is doing to the country?

It's perfectly feasible to argue that both have benefits and both have drawbacks. But picking on one is fine, picking on the other is the ultimate thoughtcrime.

Arguably, you have less control about which social circle you're born into that which religion you choose to follow.

Picking on someone because they're born black is disgusting and shameful. Picking on someone because they were born gay is hateful and cruel. Picking on someone because they were born rich is ... fine?

Can someone please clarify for me why being born in the "person of colour" group is a reason for veneration, being born in the "alternate sexuality" group means you're great, but being born "rich" means you're an unspeakable cunt and there's no reason to give you the same respect you'd give anyone else?

And can someone please explain why people who are all fans of Richard Dawkins (or even Richard Dawkins himself) can rip the shit out of Christianity (which is a load of bollocks perpetuated by fallible misogynist cunts) but not Islam (which is a load of bollocks perpetuated by fallible misogynist cunts)?

Surely they're all deserving of respect or none of them are deserving of respect?

Nigella contretemps

Let me start this by saying that I don't know whether Nigella was assaulted by her husband. If he did, then I have absolutely no fucking time for him whatsoever and he deserves whatever's coming to him after due process.

I do not condone domestic violence, I despise anyone who picks on someone unable to defend themselves. I despise the mental abuse that accompanies the physical violence in these situations.

And yet, I have to say that I don't really think ANYONE has enough evidence based on the pictures to form an opinion.

Let me just say this: a Labour-supporting newspaper publishes a set of photos depicting someone who helped the Tories in an unflattering light. We don't know how many photos there are, the person who could have submitted only some of the photos or the paper could have chosen the photos to fit a certain narrative. The article is full of irrelevant bollocks, disparaging innuendo passing as comment and "onlookers said". The assaultee seems to have carried on living with the assaulter and seems perfectly happy. There have never even been rumours of marital

Based on the photos, the body language for an assault is entirely wrong. I've seen similar role-playing behaviour between consenting adults.

I'd have absolutely no trouble believing that Saatchi was a dom and that Nigella was a sub. And if you didn't know what goes on in the world of BDSM, you would quite likely freak out if you saw it being enacted in public. But the key difference between kink and domestic violence is the issue of consent. And if two consenting adults choose to do things that you or I find incomprehensible, does this mean that the police need to be involved?

So I'm not going to say that it's not assault, but I'm not immediately convinced that it is. I'm certainly not going to rush to judgment on the basis of those photos.

If it was a bit of hanky-panky, I'm bloody sure they both regret it; if it was assault, it's surely her decision to make something of it, or not.

I'm unsurprised that feminists have been jumping up and down about this, immediately calling it domestic violence, demanding police action and making snarky remarks about anybody with a contrary opinion.

However, I've been fucking horrified by "anarchists" calling for the police to get involved in the private affairs of a successful, powerful, adult woman. It's almost like they don't think she's capable of cutting his balls off with a deft twitch of a kitchen knife or, you know, going to the police herself.

The whole thing is profoundly depressing to me.

Update: I spoke to a professional domme about this. She says that the body language is not fully the language of someone who's enjoying it. But even she isn't sure that it's not a bit of roleplay. She thinks that Mr Saatchi may be a bit unpleasant. The jury is still out on what happened, but no matter what the truth is, it's none of our fucking business unless they choose to make it public.

Second update: Apparently Mr Saatchi is a cunt who has accepted a police caution for assault. So that's me told.

Third update: I believe a divorce is in the offing. So I was completely wrong.

No change there, then.

The S-word

I am profoundly depressed today: the aftermath of the Boston bombing has left a truly awful taste in my mouth.

The reaction of (some) left-wing people (Owen Jones, Maria Eagle, amongst others: I'm looking at you) has left me profoundly angry: they used the "s-word".

Solidarity.

Just roll the word around your mouth for a moment.

Solidarity.

A word redolent of union activity and collectivist thinking and utterly bereft of humanity. The sort of word that RMT committees might use to indicate moral support of a strike by the NUT. A word, charitably, that communists might use to express their support to workers exploited by capitalist running dogs.

But is it really the word to express your sympathy and empathy to victims of an atrocity? Do you really think such a politically loaded word is the right thing to say to someone who has suffered such violence? You're not standing shoulder to shoulder in the battle against the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie here. These people are frightened, angry, hurt, grieving, anguished.

Where is your humanity, your heart, your compassion, when you all can offer is the tepid, banal solidarity of the proletariat?

Maria Eagle particularly got up my nose with the implication that there was some mileage in levering in the Hillsborough disaster into the frame of this most recent tragedy.

But of course, the masterclass in hypocrisy had to be Gerry fucking Adams expressing his "solidarity" with the people of Boston, who have, ironically, funded him generously to bomb the fuck out of the people of the United Kingdom.

There is no mileage to be made out of scoring points on the back of a tragedy, particularly when nothing is known about who or why it was done (something a lot of people pointing out the previous irony seem to have forgotten by going on to say unpleasant things about Bostonians deserving this tragedy.)

But there is hope among the bile, vapidity and stupidity: thousands of Americans (those callous, heartless bastards) have opened their homes to victims and their families to help them get through this.

It just goes to show that when you let go of party political bullshit, people can do the right thing without the state forcing them to do so.

A new religion

A couple of days ago, it dawned on me why religion is becoming less relevant in our lives. It isn't. It's just that the god we worship is no longer the abstract skyfairy YHWH or his myriad descendants and variants, but the equally abstract (yet much more apparent) state.

Authoritarian worshippers of the two main factions (the Left and the Right) argue violently about which of them holds the keys to the True Way Forward To Holiness by insisting their grip on the levers of the state will lead to a path of plenty and righteousness.

As with most religious beliefs, the opportunities for apparently sensible, intelligent people to talk utter bullshit in defence of their religious hierarchy and slant on what the state should be are no more illogical and incomprehensible than Catholics refusing contraception in an era of HIV:

Funnily enough, last year one of those sympathetic to Brown had a very different take on a 17-year old tweeter. Graham Linehan noted in the case of “@Rileyy_69”, who was arrested for tweeting abuse (and a lame death threat) to Tom Daley:

As a symbol of free speech, Riley69 is not Lenny Bruce. He’s not even the EDL. He’s a teenager going through that thing a lot of teenagers go through where they seem unable to feel empathy. This kind of temporary sociopath can be very dangerous and using these new tools they can wreak havoc more efficiently than ever before.

He was all for Riley’s arrest - there was no ‘oh teenagers!’ on display here. Yet Riley69 wasn’t a public figure, just someone who had tweeted idiotic comments to a celebrity. If Tom Daley had quickly blocked him, almost no-one would have ever heard of him. Instead Daley alerted his followers and we ended up with people like Linehan defending Riley69’s arrest. The logic, then, that it’s simply awful to bring to light the casual homophobia/racism etc of a newly-pointed police figure but fine and dandy to arrest someone of the same age for their idiotic tweets seems rather…pained. It’s for this reason that I have zero doubt that, had Brown’s tweets not came to light via the Daily Mail but rather (say) through some left-wing blogger who presented them as highlighting her use of ‘faggots’, the response from many would be very different.

People on the Left will grumpily endorse actions from their bishops that would drive them insane if called for by the bishops of the Right and vice versa.

It's also ironic how many left-wing "atheists" will happily venerate the state to irrational heights. In a sense, I'd regard the Left as the devout Catholics of statism, and the Right as milque-toast CoE. The Left seem to have a peculiar belief in the holiness of the state: philanthropy and charity of individuals is shameful, the Holy State should provide for all from its extortion. The Right still go to church, but they've jettisoned some of the more ludicrous aspects of the theology.

Irrational, prone to violent and unreasoning reaction to heretics, filled with internecine squabbles and ridiculous sects, governed by arcane rules interpreted by people of dubious morality using their shamanic powers to hide disgusting deeds: religion has not gone away at all, the world has just adopted a hungrier, more violent god.

Philpotty

So, the Daily Mail has done it again: trolled the chattering classes into a good old froth.

Vile product of Welfare UK: Man who bred 17 babies by five women to milk benefits system is guilty of killing six of them

Apparently, the word "bred" offended one frother. Well, yes, but he wasn't exactly guilty of "fathering" them, was he? He did absolutely treat them as cattle. He may have shown them affection from time to time, but so would any farmer of milk cows. Just because they were human beings, doesn't mean he treated them as such.

Furthermore, it's hard to say why Philpott isn't the product of Welfare UK. He was definitely a weapons-grade cunt, but if he didn't have a benefits system he could milk to fuck he'd have had to become a criminal or work. The Welfare State may not have made him a complete cunt, but it certainly enabled him.

To be brutally honest, I've personally met more people who milk the benefits system and more people who have been completely let down by the benefits system than I've met people who have been helped by it, by about 5 to 1.

I notice, too, that the much vaunted social care that the saintly state provides completely bypassed all these poor children, despite the minor red flag of him bragging on national TV about what a cunt he was. Well, I guess that's a bit subtle.

As an inquiry was launched into the case, it also emerged that:

• ‘Shameless Mick’ faces a fresh police investigation for allegedly raping a woman who went on to bear one of his children.
• He was jailed for trying to kill a schoolgirl lover, stabbing her 27 times after she ended their relationship.
• Philpott plotted to ‘get rich quick’ – turning funeral funds donated by the local community into Argos vouchers.

God only knows what those children would have turned out like with that as a role model, though.

And God help the rest of them.

Cyprus

I don't really have coherent words to describe this.

I cannot believe that anyone can still think of the EU as any kind of force for good if they are prepared to take this kind of action to protect their precious, impractical, insane, vanity project currency.

What's worse is the Pandora's box that's been opened. Now, any government in need of money will simply hit your bank accounts, your pension any fucking thing they want and can with a "one off stability levy" that doesn't even need discussing in parliament.

Just so they can piss it up against the wall of their incompetence and interference.

Nice going Urophiles.

Publish and be Damned

First of all, despite the fact that I am not a lawyer, I am a deeply cynical person and arguments such as this do not compel me in the slightest:

In light of these definitions individual bloggers are unlikely to be subject to the new proposed regulatory regime. So for example those individual blogs on WordPress or Blogger would remain unregulated and not subject to the adverse costs awards, or possibility of exemplary damages, that can result from not signing up as members of the proposed regulator. On the other hand websites such run by those such as the Huffington Post or Guido Fawkes could be.

Paul Staines’s ‘Guido Fawkes’ website for instance has a number of contributors, is run as a business and despite being off shore is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom.

If I enable Google Ads on my blog, I would fall under this regulator, because I've got a couple of guest posts on my blog.

The article goes on to say:

Whilst he is entitled to protest and refuse to join the regulator one has to ask, from a commercial perspective, why such a website would do so?

Well, up to a point, your honour. The events that led up to Leveson were NOT issues of regulation, they were quite clearly acts that were proscribed by law in which the media, police and the political establishment were complicit. The whole Hacked Off bollocks was not a failure in the existing media regulatory system, it was a failure of the criminal justice system to which the media were a party.

That is quite a different matter altogether and one that our glorious politico-legal Establishment has quietly glossed over with some fetching Farrow & Ball Red Herring emulsion.

The whole issue of media regulation (or not) should much more correctly be looking at the consumers of this tripe. The Sun, the Daily Star, The Mirror, The Daily Mail, etc. all feature swathes of salacious, scandalous gossip because that's what people want to read. If people didn't want to read this shit or see tits on Page 3, they shouldn't buy papers that provide that sort of thing.

The fact that this tripe gets bought and read so avidly is because there are cunts who want to read this sort of shit. It's a fucking lie to say that if papers didn't print it people would suddenly start reading Tolstoy, because there is a massive market for vacuous magazines filled to the brim with the banal details of Z-list-sleb lives.

You can regulate yourself to death and not fix the root cause of this shit.

And, of course, the slebs themselves are not at all blameless for this situation. It's insane for Hugh Grant to live the vacuous life of a sleb, trolling from movie star wife to movie star wife, enjoying all the glamour to then get the hump when the same media that fawned over him suddenly get the chance to report that he's been sucked off in a car by a prostitute.

The people who are actually the least to blame in this whole farrago of bullshit are probably the media, who are simply providing consumers with what they want.

The people who buy this shit and the slebs who whore themselves around for media attention both need to take a long, hard look at themselves.

The cunts.

The Pope is a Dope

So much for infallibility: Da Pope has apparently been rumbled for dodgy dealings in Argentina. What is it with the Catlicks and fascism, eh, Benny?

But you have to admire his brass neck:

"The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."

... said the man who is now in charge of one of the world's largest businesses, built almost entirely off extortion from the poorest and most vulnerable.

When these fuckers stop telling us how we have to change our ways to help out other and start changing their ways to help others, I'll start listening to them. Until then, they're no fucking different to a government.

Jesus wept.

As it were.

And so it begins... (for @TomHarrisMP) #equalmarriage

I think this is the first time I've noticed the start of a Fabian twisting of our language.

While I'm all for teh gayz having the right to fuck up their lives with marriage, I now see that we're not allowed to talk about gay marriage. It's "equal marriage".

No, it's not equal. There are different constraints that apply to gay marriage, one of which is that gays can have affairs and it's not grounds for divorce. That's a pretty weird form of exclusive monogamous commitment right there. There are other differences, a lack of consummation is not grounds for divorce either. So, you can have a gay marriage, never touch your partner, fuck around as much as you want and your partner just has to put up with it.

What kind of marriage is that, then?

But somehow, this has become "equal marriage". I'm pretty sure there's loads of people in straight marriages who would like the same perks, frankly. There are probably more straight people fuck around in their marriages and would like to do so without any prospect of sanction than there are gays who want to get married. What about some "equal rights" for them?

And what happens if a transgender gets married as a straight and then converts? Does their "conventional" marriage now become an "equal" marriage or are they a same-sex couple who have to be faithful?

This is just another badly-drafted, ill-considered bit of law that is going to fuck things around more. But mostly I'm annoyed about the abuse of the language.

It makes me wonder how much other "equality" law is a load of shit.

The failed promise of UKIP

There was a time when I had some hope for UKIP. There were a number of young activists who had strongly libertarian ideas and the unformed nature of the party meant that it could, for a time, have the potential to appeal to those who aren't served by the malign, Fabian social democracy of the other parties.

But alas, it was not meant to be. Occasional, stupid, illiberal, vote-grabbing policies and the rawness of their politicians shown up by smooth careerists have been firmed up into more frequent stupid, illiberal, vote-grabbing policies and their politicians are gradually having their raw edges knocked off. Soon, we won't be able to tell them apart from the Liberal Democrats.

How sad.

Actually, let's NOT "privatise" the NHS, shall we?

I realise this is probably going to come as a bit of a shock to everyone, given that I hate socialised anything, and my experience of the NHS has been universally depressing and distressing and frustrating.

But I've just realised the outcome of "privatising" the NHS is not going to be loads of independent surgeries and hospitals all competing openly and honestly, driving down costs and improving the experience of healthcare for everyone; it's much more likely to be like public transport, with large, bureaucratic corporate companies gobbling up regions of healthcare and providing de facto (or even worse, de jure) monopolies in each area.

It's a measure of just how useless government is and how reluctant it is to relinquish control of anything that the only model they have for privatisation is to farm the services out to a couple of their mates so that it's easy to "nudge" them in the "right" direction, rather than opening things up to the market and leaving them to sort themselves out. This despite the repeated and rather obvious failure of the model to provide any cost savings or a genuine improvement in service.

We might as well save ourselves the inevitable arse raping (without lube) that is going to happen, since government won't actually privatise the service, but rather just outsource it.

I can't really tell the difference between fascism and modern corporatism.

Can you?