The Mental State Of The Average Daily Mail Reader

This is something John and I often debate, what is it that makes Mail readers take it all in? What is it they actually believe, because judging by the comments and the articles, they are all over the place.

One thing is certain: "I don’t want the state to tell me what to do, but I want everyone else to be as I am". As John puts it, it's all about social control.

So here is a list I put together of what it seems they do believe in and what they want to see happen.

Under 18s shouldn't be allowed to drink unless I say so

Abortion should be banned

Women must stay at home

Drugs are pure evil and must be banned

Any form of death caused by anyone is murder no matter what or why

Everyone must be nice and smile and get on with it

House prices must continue to rise

Inflation must be low

Prices must be at 1950's levels

Interest rates must be high

Bankers cannot take risks

The stock market must continue to rise

The government should be tiny

The armed forces should be huge

The NHS should be stripped
I shouldn't have to pay for medical care

The NHS should be perfect

I shouldn't have to pay for it

The civil service should be tiny

I demand all the services I currently get

The cane should be brought back

My child would never need it

There should be no unemployment

The unemployed are scum

The unemployed should get nothing

Repossessions shouldn't be allowed

Council tax should be banned

I want my Council to carry on as it is

People must be tolerated

Muslims are scum

Gay people are not really gay, just confused

Gay people should burn in hell

Sex education should be banned

Teenage pregnancies must be lowered

Have I missed anything off? They really are a bunch of lunatics.

The Daily Mail Tells Its Readers To Get A Semi And Get Rid Of The Wife

A classic bit of Daily Mail smut today

Nothing like a dirty bit of teen shagging to get middle England all aroused, and if they are lucky they can click on the story about David Walliams' teen girlfriend and look at all her diiiirty pictures. Or even look at Lily Allen in a state of undress; well, she's nearly young enough.

They've disabled the comments on this one of course. Then again, it's difficult for Dave in Basingstoke to post a comment while eating his cornflakes with one hand and pupping for Britain with the other.

It's ok though, Sally is outside on the drive getting the kids into the back of the car like a good housewife.

Lunch Experience Part 2

I went into W H Smith before my foray into the underbelly of this country via my burger.

Now, there is a reason why I don't go there, namely that it's shit. It is also expensive, confusing, full of tossers and I usually come out vowing to never enter Lucifer's scrotum ever again.

But for a myriad of reasons I was in there.

Still a shit hole.

However, to my surprise, there was something to quickly jot down on here. Upon entering the book section, I obviously came across the first genre.

Tragic Life Stories

I'm serious. That, allegedly, is now a genre of book and is the the big boy one in Smiths. What the fuck does that say about our country, that the best selling and number one section in the biggest 'newsagents' is all about children dying of cancer, mums coping with it, and families talking about paedo gang rape and what not?

Every cover was a kid with tubes coming out of them, or a mug shot of a woman after being raped, or a teenager riddled with some horrific illness.

Why do people want to read about this? To make themselves feel better? Because I can see no reason to read, as much as I sympathise of course, about people's Tragic Life Stories.

My theory on such matters, like Diana, mass grieving and thousands of comments on tabloid tales of woe, is that it replaces actual mourning.

We used to have massive wars, disease wiping out countless thousands, children dying of 'flu. Grief was a daily fact of life, but has been wiped out by medicine, good diets (nearly), no mass warfare.

So people replace it with the pain of others, projecting their innermost human pain onto other people's plight.

And so other people make money out of it by publishing shit books.

Lunch Experience Part 1

I went crazy at lunch and had burger in Burger King. And why not, abuse the deal, couple of quid, 'treat' myself.

Fast food places are a window on society. Go in one alone, have a bite to eat and just listen, look around, take it all in. It's a fucking cesspit this country.

Two women, young kids. First of all I was a bit more 'OK, fine, but can you get out of my way', as they were using the rides they insist on putting in Burger King (no doubt to brainwash children) like it was Thorpe bloody Park.

By the end though, it was something else.

Overhearing two young scumbag mums shouting 'Come 'ere Tiff, get yer dinner' is bad enough, but when they then start moaning about how they 'Can't get no more money till I send off the birf certificate' was just taking the piss frankly.

You are skint and on the dole and you have kids and, to be spiteful, you need a fucking wash..but you can afford the world's most expensive burger joint. Between them it must have cost easily £15. And the kids were reception age, so, I don't know, school maybe?

What, prey tell, does that say about the welfare system in this country? And, more to the point, what does it say about the people who see it as a way of life?

Jack Straw Tells The People To Fuck Off

I'm actually in shock, I'll just paste the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/24/iraq-freedom-of-information

Jack Straw has literally told every person in this country, every soldier, every widow and grieving parent to fuck right off.

And the bloody Tories have backed him, citing damage to cabinet democracy because Ministers would be more reluctant to openly state their views if they know it could be made public. The irony is he has used the Freedom of Information Act to stop the freedom of information about how out armed forces were illegally sent to war.

I don't have to point out that in America minutes are on public record as a matter of course. So what are we so afraid of?

And if a Minister is supporting military force by the strength of his or her convictions then they should have the balls to defend what they decide to people that elected them.

All this says is that this lot, ALL OF THEM, are cowards.

The fact that brave men and women have given their lives because they were ordered to by this lot makes me sick. If a 19 year old kid has the guts to be shot at because of the decision made in Cabinet, then the people who made that decision should have the guts to explain why.

It has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with knowing what would be exposed would destroy them.

At last, some common sense on the economy...

Great Telegraph piece here on inflationary fears and how it's not deflation at all that's the issue.

The government and the Beeb are deliberately muddying the waters. People mustn't be fooled into this 'let's not be partisan' line. The reason why we could be forgiven for considering ourselves to be free thinking members of a democratic country, is that we have more than one political party.

The problem isn't that the Tories are whipping up a hysteria about the economy. The problem is that they are being too laid back about it all.

If it's all hands at the pump at the BBC and the left wing print press to detract from criticism of the government and to help support them, then it's the duty of bloggers like me to run to the pump at the other end to open up the floodgates of condemnation.

Let me repeat it here for the thousandth time: Labour have destroyed the economy and they are destroying the country.

Jack Straw says Met Police is no longer 'institutionally racist'.

Jack Straw has some weasel words on the subject of racism in the Met. He's come out and said that the Met is no longer institutionally racist, but then he qualifies that by adding that there are still pockets of this phenomenon in existence.

Please remember that this is the bloke who recently slated the Human Rights Act for being a villain's charter, whilst the sheepish public forget the fact that it was he who oversaw the 1998 Act's implementation during his time as Home Secretary at the end of the '90s.

Now, we see another interesting twist in events. Jack Straw was the Home Secretary that really took forward the notion of institutional racism in the police and it was he that buddied up with the Lawrence family whilst pushing forward the 70 key recommendations set forth in the Macpherson report.

A decade on, and we're to believe that a) Everything is now fine and the institutional racism has gone, except b) not quite, and there's still a bit of it dotted about here and there.

So which is it? It either exists or it doesn't. And where is the qualification for making a claim either way? Straw's comments irritate me, because I believe that he is deliberately trying to satisfy two key things. Firstly, he wants to create the idea that he succeeded in his goal and that Labour did well on this issue. Secondly, he doesn't want to upset black people and other ethnic minorities by telling them something they don't want to hear, so he steps back from the brink and makes a vague, yellow remark that 'there may still be pockets'.

What pockets, where, why and how?

Of course, you see, the mission can never truly be accomplished. Because that's not what his supporters want to hear whether it's true or not. The left wing supporters of the Macpherson report and those that constantly decry the police as racist will never, ever, end their battle against the police and wider society for racism. Because, simply put, this is a political war not a just war with a definable outcome.

All we ever hear now from the left is protest against racism. If they are to be believed, we are drowning in it, swamped by it, surrounded by racists everywhere. We need direct action to stop it.

But what is racism, if not a mindset in the heads of humans? What evidence is there that it is everywhere, when no human is omniscient? Why is it racist that the police have 'x' number of people from 'y' minority? What does it mean to 'represent the communities you serve'? If by represent you mean, 'x' number of cops need to be 'y' colour?

Isn't obsession with race quotas...racist? Will BME people in society regard the police as less racist and have more confidence in them if more of their number are black? Is there any evidence for this? Will it really matter if quotas are met?

Is there mere existence of quotas likely to cause resentment and therefore more racism amongst white people? Are quotas racist?

By the police concentrating on logging racist incidents and taking strong action against things like people being racially abusive, is the outcome likely to lead to better social cohesion and a safer more just society? Or does it risk making martyrs out of people and mountains out of mole hills? Is a small racist incident more serious than a bigger non racist one?

Where is the measure in place to reflect how the population feels about the Macpherson report and how the Met and other forces have been taken forward by ACPO on the subject? Are people educated on this subject, and if not why not?

I ask these questions, because I am very sceptical about what Labour have done to the police over the last decade. I am also very sceptical about the Macpherson report and I am unsure about many of its recommendations.

I don't think there's logic to being obsessed with race, racism and quotas because I see it all as being entirely counter intuitive.

I also think it's a tool for the left to wage another perpetual battle against their enemies. Tories, the white working and middle classes and anyone who opposes Big State and forced equality of outcome.

My bet is that all the recommendations of the Macpherson report could be qualitatively fulfilled and proven to have succeeded, and still vast swathes of our Metropolis, black or liberal white, would scream about our racist police and racist society and racist institutions.

This is the worry. These left wing wars never end. There's no end game. It's all part of a delusional, self-perpetuating myth, and no-one who supports these campaigns is ever honest with themselves and others about what it is they hope to achieve.

All logic is lost.

Is the price of bullets ever blamed on high murder rates?...

No. So why is it, in our increasingly authoritarian country, the government's cheerleaders in the press constantly go on and on and on and on about cheap alcohol being intrinsically linked to diseases caused by booze?

This Guardian piece could have been written yesterday, last week, last month, last year or even 5 years ago or more. It doesn't really matter. The Pravda elite have been ramming this bullshit down our throats for so long, virtually no-one can smell it any more. It's all second nature.

OK, where do I begin? The piece shows that booze is cheaper now than in the 1980s. Except it fails to explain the wealth that these blighted drinkers possess, or the fact that real wages have fallen steadily since the 1970s, or that there is a serious problem with homelessness and welfare dependency in Scotland. (I'd never expect the Communist press to couch it in these terms, but the reality is there - Scotland is sadly one of Britain's provinces ravaged by the evils of post war socialism).

The propaganda notably skirts round the question of why alot of people drink an awful lot in Scotland. Could it be, that their lives are shit because everything is so shit and pointless? Apart from being fucking cold and there being no decent jobs, the State has total control over most aspects of peoples' lives and there isn't any sign of hope out of it. The Scots, as are most English to be fair, faced with choosing the dole, a boring private sector job probably in a call centre, or an even more boring job in the public sector. Maybe at a council pretending to update spreadsheets all day long whilst making endless cups of instant coffee they don't really want but gets them away from their screens.

They have a choice between three left wing parties. The SNP on the hard left, Labour on the regular left and the Lib Dems on the centre left. The Tories are hated still, because, well, they remind them of why the Southern bastards have done quite well and why they are stuck in the shit.

Alcohol provides a release from all the shit, and this isn't just for Scots, it's for most of us these days. They only take it to the sorts of levels discussed in the article because for them, the escape can't come hard and fast enough - and who can blame them?

There's no sense of individuality anymore and no sense of empowerment to the citizen and his or her community. This is because the State has been allowed to become all-powerful and there have been too many regulations on the choices people make. Hence why big businesses set up chains all over the place and turn our towns into carbon copy centres of banality, and why the State occupies an ever increasing chunk of our public life. The State doesn't ever impart the ownership of anything, because it acts in self interest as do all over-powerful States. And so we have lost things like common land, Carnegie halls, public buildings and spaces where people used to convene and act as proper communities.

For all the left go on about socialist values, what they really want these days is for us to stay in our homes and behave. So for them now to wade in with this relatively new war against drinkers is nothing short of spectacular cheek.

How many more houses of cards will Labour construct and how many more times will their politicians blow them down again before people realise the stupidity and futility of it all? And when will people start to reject the malignant logic that pumps forth from government propaganda?

As I said in my title, people don't blame cheap bullets for murders. People don't even blame cheap drugs for drug use. People don't blame lower petrol prices for increased car usage. So why the obsession with 'cheap supermarket booze' and ill social effects?

Could it possibly be, because it's in the interests of the left and their left wing government to exercise more control over people? To give the impression that the State knows best and the individual is flawed? The find another revenue stream for the treasury? To keep tabs on us? To tell businesses what they can do, so later down the line they can keep doling out the interventionist controls over private contracts between business and buyer? To ensure that the NHS is less burdened so it doesn't look as horrific and failed as it actually is? Surely not!

For fuck sake people, just wake the fuck up will you.

Our economic solution appears to be 'hair of the dog'

It seems somewhat absurd that the government's way of digging us out of our economic quagmire is to bring about a more frenzied version for what it has been practising for the last decade.

Cheap debt and low interest rates, thus fuelling a housing bubble that made everyone think they were rich when they weren't, has been de rigeur for New Labour and its invented electoral fortune. Of course now that it's all gone majorly tits up largely because of Brownite economics, the government and the Bank of England have decided that the only way out of it all is to...decrease interest rates and encourage lending.

All sounds sensible, you might think, except you'd be wrong.

Let's look at it shall we? Everyone is in serious amounts of debt because many people have been encouraged and lured into being profligate and stupid (apart from me of course). By slashing interest rates, all that has happened is savings rates have crashed but borrowing rates have remained the same. Well, of course they have. The mortgage market uses the Libor rate these days and they are tying to claw back capital. In the absence of forced coercion from the State, the banks will simply have their cake and eat it and hard cheese for the mug punters.

I think all this is quite funny and deserved, but that's another story.

So people can't live on savings anymore, and rates are the same rate or below inflation. They certainly will be once inflation kicks in due to the printing of money from 5 March 2009 onwards.

People who have capital, and want to get some kind of benefit, other than investing in pensions (which are of course fucked) or endowment policies (which, again, were fucked thanks to Labour), have limited options.

Many people thought about taking their money offshore. That's now a bad idea because Brown and other interventionists are seeking to close up loopholes. Foreign banks that are not offshore are equally as shit and unstable as our own British institutions.

More people than this have lumped into Gold, which is still proving to be an amazing investment. Except, as anyone with nouse will explain, this is an enormous commodity bubble waiting to burst because there are way more new owners of Gold than there is Gold. And the price has gotten to be quite silly now. I await the next tale of sorrow and woe from clobbered investors.

The stock market is shockingly bad for anyone wanting to go long. In fact, it's nigh on impossible to even break even let alone turn a profit. Some people have done well out of spread betting and selling short. Though anyone who values their sanity would steer clear of this immensely dangerous avenue to making money. 'Not for the faint hearted' is a mild way of describing these ventures.

With the threat of us turning into the next Weimar Republic, with hyper-inflation and colossal debt, hundreds of thousands of people with money will simply shit their pants and look to lump into something that won't evaporate and leave them destitute.

So where have we come back to ladies and gents? Amazingly, staggeringly, and stupefyingly, we have come back to the same God awful place (a la Blair Witch Project) where we started in the first throws of this horrendous credit crisis. Housing.

My personal prediction, portentously, is that once the housing market has crashed to say, 2002, 2003 levels in a year or so's time, people will panic. And in panicking there could be another mad rush for housing. Except this time, not from people who get hold of mortgages, but from people who have enough wedge to buy, or near as damn it buy, outright.

We'll end up going the same way as countires like France, Holland, Belgium, Germany and Italy, where homes are owned by a small number of people and the majority have been frozen off into a permanent tennant class. Unless the banks start lending again, at reasonable rates, how are first time buyers (like me) going to finally get the leg up?

It'll literally be the ushering in of the ultimate age in the haves and have nots. Those that invest in housing (and yes, housing will continue to be about investing and making money) will find bricks and mortar to be the safest way to keep their money safe and perhaps to accumulate. Those without, well. I can't see much hope.

Real wages have gone down since the late '70s. I can categorically state now that salaries haven't budged, particularly in the private sector, since I graduated from University. The job market is ever more competitive and people just count themselves lucky these days to have anything, never mind something that will lead somewhere (the situations our parents generation enjoyed).

Opportunities will be limited. The overpopulation and overcrowding of our cities, combined with increasing crime and lawlessness because of the effects of socialism and social democracy will lead people to become more transient. This transience will be bolstered by the fact that, as I have explained, more people will rent and not be tied down to a mortgage.

With people shifting about a lot more looking for work and a decent place to live where they won't get killed, we'll see interesting trends in demographics, where the indolent welfare scrounging underclass remain fixed in areas where they multiply and expand. All the while the more mobile and civilised will find no sense of community or consistency in their lives.

I see this making huge swathes of the working and middle classes, well...angry. They'll feel cheated. They'll feel disinherited, disenfranchised and stitched up. By the government and by the people who cheat by getting an easy existence on the State and on the backs of the thieved and robbed.

Taxes, as we have seen over the last 4 decades, will not go down. The welfare state, as we have seen over the last 4 decades, will not be reformed or made just. You only have to watch Question Time to see the sickening left liberal consensus on these matters from all our politicians and ruling elites. They chuckle and smile amongst themselves, all rather happy at how caring and moderate they are. All the while everything is burning around them and hundreds of people every year are being shot and stabbed in what are effectively jungles. Broken Britain ain't the half of it. Perhaps the politicians could look to themselves for reasons as to how it got this way.

Where am I leading with this? Simple. It will get to the stage where either an extremist party like the BNP will make fearsome headway into the political landscape, or, more likely, there'll be large scale civil unrest possibly leading to rioting and even a form of middle class revolution.

David Cameron is about a decade out of date. He has turned up very late for what was a marvellously popular party a while ago but is now a locked up house with the lights out. He won't get anywhere by trying to emulate Tony Blair. Someone really needs to tell him this.

There was a reason why Thatcher stomped over the opposition in 3 successive general elections. She didn't need to be a pansy arsed centrist. She gave the people what they wanted and she was strong and gutsy. Just what everyone wants - someone who makes shit happen and kicks things into shape. No-one wants the nice guy anymore. We've had it with the acting and the bullshit. It was nice for about, ooh, a couple of years between 1997 and the Millennium. Now it's tired old hat and things are fucked and we need someone to finish the job she started...rolling back the state and destroying socialism in all its forms.

'No more Boom and Bust' they said in the Labour Party. Well, I don't recall Thatcher blowing up the bubble to the size Labour did, because even in the heady 1980s the underlying principle was one of careful prudence and living within ones means. No cheap credit in the '80s. No rampant, out of control buy-to-letting in the '80s.

Cheap credit is gone. But the housing market is now, like the job market, long term and royally fucked.

Cheers Gordon. Thanks a lot you one-eyed Scottish cunt.

Great News for the UK: Harman / Cruddas 'Dream Ticket' on the cards

At last, some fantastic news in the world of politics. Harriet 'that fucking harpie bitch' Harman and Jon 'who?'Cruddas are, according to fresh leadership rumblings, a possibility as a "dream ticket" (LOL) after the next election.

I don't contend with this for a second.

I think it's a perfectly brilliant idea and it is indeed a dream ticket. It's a dreamy little old fluffy cloud of a ticket in fact. Just think, all those decent, right minded, honourable people in Britain will at last be able to rest at night knowing that Labour is, once again, utterly unelectable for a good generation or two.

In fact, a lovely sweet little old ticket with these two cunts on it will possibly lead to the death of the Labour Party. Michael Foot always did want to go down with honour and principles in tact, but at least his core vote held up. These New Labour collaborating weasels and gutless no marks will have fuck all support amongst grass roots (or what's left of them) and they have about as much chance of wooing the voters back as there is of Jeremy Clarkson joining Greenpeace.

I really hope these two succeed Brown. This will surely seal the sweet political kiss otherwise known as 'Game Over'.

The Two Main Parties, There Is A Difference If You Look

The old argument about the Conservatives and Labour being the same, with the same position in the centre ground etc, has been sounded many times. With an election looming, I can see the real differences being exposed. But why does the current situation exist?

The Tories were ravaged by Europe in the 90s and the party has swallowed hard, both phile and phobe, to ignore it as an issue because of this destruction. Pre-election it is simply too dangerous and it is left to the fringe parties to argue over, setting the public climate. Much like immigration in this decade, Cameron simply cannot embrace a single issue of this nature. Labour did the same to form New Labour in the quest for power that has ravaged our nation for 15 years in the guise of over-reaching social reform.

This is now raising its ugly head. The unions that bankroll the party are stepping up the attacks from the left and the backbenchers are getting vocal. Labour has always capitulated completely in times of economic hardship because it loses its bedrock: the working northerner who has just been made unemployed from making Greggs. Sorry, cars.

There are already some differences between the big two.

On education the Tories have announced policy. They prefer the Swedish model voucher system, by which each child would have the money that it is due (i.e. the annual spend upon it by the state), rather than the school. School’s are allowed to set up outside of the curriculum, although Cameron is sheepish about this because of the ramifications. As such schools that are good get the most children, if they are over subscribed they open up another and so on. The ones that fail do so because they are rubbish. In Sweden this has been a very successful way of doing it, with parents who don’t like that method of teaching stepping out and going to another institution.

Labour prefer the current trend, despite the abject failings that are clear for all to see.

Economics policy is difficult to quantify. The Tories did commit to a period of existing levels, but that has gone out of the window since that announcement. Because of Brown’s spending it is no longer possible for any from of radical change in one parliamentary term. Taxes will have to go up, debts must be paid, there is no way around this. However, the Tories are committed to slashing Whitehall.

However, this it where it gets messy.

Tony Blair instigated a policy of triangulation in order to gain power. He would make a statement, the Tories would propose something and then he would steal that, but take it further, leaving the Tories with nowhere to go. Brown is not as good at this and so is more blatant.

Cameron has cleverly used this tactic in order to, in a complicated way, re-triangulate the triangle. This is where Brown has been caught out and that is why Cameron refuses to play ball, he refuse to make the errors that Howard, IDS et al did by making huge policy statements. Instead he does a Q&A, or Sunday interview, where he says that, for example, ‘we will slash Whitehall by x’. Darling has announced this in a clumsy piece of politics that results in the Tories simply pointing out that Labour are now copying them.

In my view it is very clever. It is a large reason that Labour are down in the polls, because the new men simply appear as old heads, having to take ideas from the newer chaps across the bench.

Until there is an election called (November in my view), it is electoral suicide for Cameron to put his cards on the table, because Brown will simply out-position him. Those that demand policy miss the point entirely: it is the opposition's job to oppose, not set out an election manifesto months or even years before the event, by which time they have been made obsolete. Not to mention the above where the Government simply out position them.

They have also said they will reform the welfare state, with Labour in turn then making noises about doing the same, before the Left ruined them.

The middle ground, centrist position argument, this is a cover. The right of the Tories is a shambolic group of bigots more akin to UKIP, the left, including Cameron, are mild libertarians. Within that left group you have Davis to the right and Clarke to the left. However, to be elected they need to shut up, sit down and tow the line.

This is what labour did circa 1994. Blair to the right with Brown, Mandy and Blunkett, Prescott, the old school and Blunkett's dog to the left. The issue with labour is that many of their
MPs had either never been in power, were in power years ago, or when in power were for only a short period of time (Hattersley, Livingstone). This meant they would do anything and anything’s wife to get to Number 10. People like Robin Cook happily sold their souls until even they realised what was happening. Now the power is leaving, it is all going wrong. The Left of the Left are still there, the Right of the Left are all over the shop. They are also all lawyers.

The Tories have people that were in power for years, despite being out for ages. This gives them experience of government, although it has taken Cameron to mould this successfully.

Come the election all this will all be out. And it will be blood everywhere time. Cameron has the measure of Brown and Brown hates, despises, being exposed (he visibly grimaces when nailed). Brown will have to do what Labour always do and that is lurch to the Left, although to win he should actually lurch more to Blair. Cameron should simply state where he is, announce his plans and keep clever.

They are very different, but it is blind mans bluff at the moment.

NEWSFLASH: Latin American dictator wins right to become more of a dictator

Here we go. Hugo Chavez has won a resounding 54% of a rigged, stitched up vote to essentially massage his enormous ego by enabling him to become President for life. In the same way as you get those weird father & son double acts that always want to out-drink each other in places like Rileys snooker hall, Chavez clearly wants to supersede Fidel Castro as the world's longest serving dictator of a country no-one very much cares about.

But it's OK, because in London we once had a mayor who might be mayor again, who had various dealings with him because he's a socialist hero and great. This is natural, because London truly relies on inspiration from Caracus in order to solve its problems. The fact Red Ken is one of the nation's most corrupt politicians in living memory is by the by.

What makes me laugh about people like Chavez is how the liberal left love him (Guardian readers, odd lefty London Red Ken voters) yet he epitomises everything that is the antithesis to liberalism and democratic values. Just because he's an open socialist and goes on about helping the poor, doesn't make him a good person. When will the left in Britain finally twig this?

If he only won 54% on a stitch up vote now, what is going to happen in the future when elections come up and he might look like losing? He's the type of arrogant prick who wouldn't even tolerate losing to a fellow member of his own party. He wants that job, and sod everyone else. Pardon me, but I didn't think that socialism (particularly his pal Fidel's brand) was obsessed solely with the individual and the cult of the personality? I thought it was about putting the interests (supposedly) of the people first?

I won't bother reading what lefties have to say about this, because the mind boggling hypocrisy will infuriate me. People like Pilger and Mark Thomas have spent years laying into the US and their right wing allies across the world, especially those pro-western states that have supported the 'Washington Consensus' and the so-called muffling of Trade Unions.

Yet when it comes to people protesting against one of their own (in this case Chavez) it's tumble weed time. I fucking wonder why. Sur-fucking-prise. And we're to take these cunts seriously? Fucking pisses me off.

Seriously, if you want a lesson in bullshit liberal double standards, have a little dig around the next few days for either the non-reporting of Chavez's dictatorial act, or, the complete whitewashing of it. Any challenge of their logic will be met with boring remonstrations and tired hackneyed cliches about President Allende of Chile and various acts of brutal US imperialism and brutality. Pass me a hanky and a mug of ovaltine. I feel a martyrdom session coming on.

It's always moral equivalents with these lefties. Every fucking time.

You say: "OK, Chavez is doing some pretty dodgy stuff right now with this underhand vote on the extension of Presidential terms."

And you'll be met with petulant student politik, often spoken in a whiny protesty way in the same manner your younger sister did when you were kids and she ratted you out to dad for stealing her crisps.

"Oh, yeah, well, but huh, but did you know that the Ogone people of Nigeria suffered terribly because of what Shell did in the marshlands and the acts of these western multinational corporations supported by America have led to the deaths of thousands!"

Really? Well, I tell you what, when you've finished mopping up your ejaculation from the walls using that spare G2 supplement, you can listen up for a moment and learn a thing or two about life.

Bad shit happens. Just because bad shit 'A' is equal to or worse than bad shit 'B', doesn't diminish the importance or salience of bad shit 'A'. You stupid cunt. It's called post hoc ergo propter hoc, and you've managed to turn it into an art form in the relatively few years between 1989 and now. Well done. You left wing cunts are officially a totem pole of stupidity in the annals of modern western politics.

No wonder you have to lie to get into the public consciousness, by telling everyone that you aren't left wing at all and nothing about public life is left wing and everyone is a Tory sell out.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to read a liberal commentator, just once, come out and say 'hang on, I'm on the left, but this sucks'? It just goes to show how gutless, stupid and lacking in principle these guys are.

They are few in number, but by God are the left influential in this country. The real drivers for policy and public debate. The BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, Channel 4, it all seeps into the wider debate. It all filters into the national psyche. Why do you think Che has become such a revered, benign hero figure over here in this cold distant island? How is it that a corrupt communist piece of shit is able to raise smiles and get voted in as mayor of our capital (twice)? How is it that a national socialist leader can have t-shirts printed of him, in praise of his spirit and fight, simply because his enemy was the USA? (this is what I witnessed when on the anti-Iraq war march in 2003). And how is it that a left wing leader of a Latin American country can use state funds and intimidation to sustain his rule, thereby undermining democracy, and the left in the UK can carry on idolising him?


The lessons are two fold. Don't trust the media, and recognise the left in Britain as the deranged, intellectually bankrupt, pious load of fucking bullshite it is. Those hypocrites make me fucking sick.

NEWSFLASH: Obscenely rich oligarch slightly less obscenely rich

According to some business mag, Roman Abramovich has lost $9 billion because of the financial crisis. He was worth, according to Forbes, $23.5 billion a year ago. Now he's only worth $13.9 billion. Disgraceful innit. What shall we do about it readers?

Well, seeing how utterly insane Britain has become over the last decade, I wouldn't be surprised to see pickets outside Number 10 demanding an explanation on what has happened to Roman's missing billions. I can see it now; the capital's entire army of homeless people throwing down those soggy, smouldering fag butts and donated pret sandwiches and tennants cans and descending on Whitehall in hoards.

They'd cause a bit of a stink and then sod off up the Strand, where they'd stand around Charring Cross station holding polystyrene cups and grudgingly conceding what a fantastic job Gordon Brown is doing in his handling of the economy.

Seriously though, if you had that many billions, would your money cease to be anything other than just a number on your financial adviser's computer screen?

"How much, 9 bill? No way, I was gonna spend that next week on some clothes and shit! Bastards!"

And have you ever seen a picture of Roman A. when he hasn't got that stupid inane grin on his face? It's not just that he's a stupid peasant spiv with low intelligence. It's also because he never has to worry about anything ever, for the rest of his life. Because his wealth will always be totally and utterly obscene.

When you get to that level of wealth, power and influence, you'll always have a large percentage of your stash permanently secured in secret, untouchable bank accounts and rock solid assets.

Personally, I think that the new super-rich are an embarrassment to the free market capitalist system. They are the elite's chosen few that are allowed to slip the net and not take on the responsibilities that everyone else has to (bar of course the underclass). The amount in tax that the super-rich pay as a comparison to regular wage slaves is a farce.

It's because of anomalies like him and his oligarch pals from the East, brought about by the few years of chaos following the fall of Communism, that a new authoritarian menace is growing in bark and bite within the frosty walls of the Kremlin. It's also a bit awkward that Britain is a haven for so many of them.

It's not a pleasure to see his wealth diminish. It's a meaningless event. If he wasn't there, swanning about West London with his entourage, it would be some other dodgy spiv with warehouses full of Russian money.

The real consolation lies in the fact that Chelsea FC aren't any good any more. Watching them (and The Scum) slip down the table below the likes of Villa and the Toffees is where the real schadenfreude lies. And of course, once Chelsea ceases to become a proper going concern, where next will the nation's favourite oligarch flee in order to insure his back side from Doctor Polonium and his pals from Putinville?

I dunno. There's always Portsmouth. Would be quite handy for his World's Biggest Yacht, no?

The Guardian Takes On The New Walkers Crisp Flavours

Yes, that painful rag the Groany has decided it simply must comment on the new flavours being touted by Walker's Crisps. In fact, it's Charlie Brooker who simply must wade in with his size four Start-Rites (yes, I am linking his shoe size with the size of his penis).

So I simply must have a pop at the jumped up little scroat.

The first bit that pissed me off was

...the crushing social disgrace involved in actually purchasing a bag

No Charlie, the only place that happens is Notting Hill where your newsagent is called Miles, who only sells organic ciggies under the counter and stocks chocolate and crisps to be, like, you know, totally authentic working class yuh. Only the fucking Guardian would see a bag of crisps as a crushing social faux pas.

I actually had a bag of the Fush 'n' Chups yesterday and although the initial smell nearly felled the horse located in a field some miles away, I thought them oddly enjoyable. Lady B didn't agree, but then crisps are for boys and girls are icky and smell so there.

They were basically like the nearly ultimate snack: Scampi Fries. Oh yes Sir, indeedy.

I've tried the Chocolate ones too, that are shit basically. Not enough chili to be anything, so they just taste of, in turn, the near ultimate shit snack: Hershey's. Is it possible for anyone to eat that without chucking all over the place? My American chums, get some Cadbury's down you!

Charlie decides to also open up his assessment thus

As the nation's foremost investigative journalist

I always thought of him as the nation's foremost tosser, but who am I to judge. Although one look at his G profile confirms that, yes, he is a wanker of epic proportions. With such amazing articles as 'Noel's HQ is a cross between That's Life, Surprise Surprise and I'm Alan Partridge' and 'There's something strangely compelling about Tweeting', we mortals can only dream of being so close to the fore.

The man's hubris appears limited. And that comes from the Mighty Boatang...

So, KB's tip o' day is this: just eat the fucking crisps and get on with your life.

By the way, here is my list of ultimate, mainly pub, snackage:

1 The one, the only, the Pork Scratching.

2 It's the Dry Roasted Peanut

3 The crisp, namely the salt 'n' vinegar

4 Mini Cheddars, oh yes

5 Scampi Fries, mainly a solo activity though

Race and racism, home and abroad

John Pilger was right about one thing. Racism is rife in Australia.

This topic isn't part of my usual litany of interests, as I tend to think that the more people go on about it, the more racism abounds, but I thought I'd share some thoughts on racism abroad.

There have been a lot of race rows in the UK these past few years. It doesn't take much. An ill-advised comment here or there, and suddenly the entire witch-hunting apparatus swings into full effect and the media can disentangle itself of its duty to report real news for a few days or so. Then the holiday ends and it's back to the harder stuff.

Need I mention examples? That Jade Goody nonsense, Carol Thatcher recently, er...Ann Winterton's racist joke at that rugby club in Congleton. These are just three straight off the top of my head. I know there have been vastly more.

The media and liberal elites in the UK have somehow managed to conjure this view of Britain being streaked through with nasty, insidious racists. We keep getting more ridiculous and draconian legislation to 'tackle' it, as if laws are the answer...the inevitable consequence is that they don't work so more laws are called for. So we have a situation now where people can get a criminal record, a fine and even jail for using words that aren't nice. Meanwhile, you get what we had here last night outside my house. Several cars vandalised, including mine (£200 worth of damage) and the perpetrators begrudgingly taken to the police station by some liberal-do gooding cops who felt sorry for the lads, only to then receive a little warning and that's it.

But is this picture of racism in Britain real? Is it a case that the State and its apparatus need to constantly be all over us like a cheap suit, to ensure we don't even think let alone say anything racist?

I'd like to give you a little taste, if I may, of what I experienced of my travels a few years back. I was in Australia, and upon my travels up the east coast, I spoke to various locals about their thoughts on the Aboriginal people. Virtually all of the people I spoke to were dismissive, rude and outright racist (the Australians that is, not the backpackers). When ever I was in company, and Aussies were talking about getting alcohol in for a bit of a piss up, I'd here people say things like 'yeah mate, go get a couple of goon bags for us will ye'.

Goon bags? i did ask, wish I hadn't. A goon is a thoroughly disgusting way of referring to a black person (in this context, 'Abo'). The bag is reference to the boxes of wine that are popular out there (the wine is of course contained in a plastic bag). Because 'Abos' (annoying, local, patronising phrase) are often alcoholics, what with being totally disenfranchised and all, the wine boxes are called 'goon bags'. From hearing that, I realised how widespread racism is out there.

Then there was the time I was in a restaurant in Brisbane. One of those upmarket burger bar places, like Pitcher Piano. Right in the town centre. I opened up the menu, and there in front of me was an item of food called 'The Wog Burger'. You guessed it, in reference to the Abos (it contained some ingredient linked to Aboriginal peoples). I was so annoyed I walked out.

So, if that stuff goes unnoticed out there, and Thatcher's Gollywog comment gets massive attention over here, and it is accepted that certain words are not on, why is our liberal elite so hell bent on ratcheting this thing up beyond all reasonable lengths?

It is time for a new line of approach to race and racism in Britain, because quite frankly the New Labour, multiculturalist, liberal elite method is defunct, inaccurate and wholly ridiculous.

This country is not a racist country, but it is being prodded down that road by the idiots on the left.

*to add - I have to cut this short and go, as my car needs mending. Back for more soon.

Gordon Brown faces His 'Peers' And Lies His Face Off

So, old Browny McBroon gets to have a chat in front of the Chairmen of the various Committees to explain himself. If I was there I would send him to his room without any supper to think about what he'd done, but what can you do?

Some interesting bullshit has come out of this cunt's cake hole.

I think the Financial Services Authority should be given the right in regulation to penalise a bank which is basing its reward system on short-term deal making rather than long-term performance.

That would be the regulation that you have repeatedly said should be light touch then? Light touch to the point of disaster it should noted.

What we are dealing with is a global banking system that is regulated only by national supervisors.

Really? Is that not good enough then? Because, really, by 'national supervisors' Gordon actually means himself. And the fact that for hundreds of years each country has been perfectly able to regulate its own fucking markets doesn't apply. Oh, and let's not forget the admission here: Gordon has basically said that he isn't good enough to regulate his own country and a global taskforce must be set up. And a nice piece of internationalism thrown in for good measure.

What we have done [to aid economic recovery in this recession], with a few exceptions, has now been followed by other countries around the world.

Er, no it hasn't has it? By a 'a few exceptions' what Gordon means is all of it as opposed to some of it. Hence a host of countries wading in in the last few weeks to give Gordy a good shoe-ing.

But let's not forget the big fuck of a beaut, HBOS.

[HBOS did not fail because of risk taking] It was because its whole business model was wrong

Right. Sorry, let me get this right. HBOS didn't go tits up because it was taking too much risk, as warned of by its Director of Risk (whose job I think is to assess risk and advise as to how risky the risk is), it failed because its entire structure was totally fucked up (as warned by the FSA upon the merger of Halifax and BOS)? And the man who created said totally fucked up business model, which surely includes risk, is the man Gordon Brown appointed as deputy head of the FSA: James Crosby.

Says a lot about Gordon's economic acumen doesn't it?

I can't get over how this country has not taken old One Eye out and nailed him to he fucking wall. The man is a joke.

Brilliant article by George Monbiot in the 'G'

Oh, please read this.

Fantastic, absolutely fantastic. He may be an annoying lefty, he may write for the Graun, he may raise some leftyish points I wouldn't entirely go along with, but this article is possibly one of the best attacks against New Labour (specifically Hazel Blears) that I have ever read.

Good show that man, and whilst it was a rant, it was a bloody well written, well stated and informed rant.

10/10.

Northern Ireland Minister Takes A Stand

Northern Ireland Environment Minister Sammy Wilson appears to have taken a stand against religious extremism, sorry, I mean environmentalism, because he simply doesn't like it.

We here at B and D salute you sir.

Adverts depicting the destruction of the planet as a direct consequence of leaving you telly on were deemed by the Minister to be bollocks and misleading, so he pulled them. He has of course been lynched by the Green mob.

I await Northern Ireland's complete destruction by the sea within the next few minutes.

To be fair, a Minister shouldn't really refuse a campaign because of his own views, but then again, fuck 'em. In this case he is right. Why should Green zealots/campaigners use taxpayers money to peddle their own opinions, based on their interpretation of the evidence, of disaster when the opposite views are not allowed?

I have stated before that I am pro-recycling, pro-'green' energy production and generally pretty 'green', but I refute utterly the view that 150 years of CO2 production by mankind, the vast, vast majority being located totally in Western Europe and Eastern North America for the bulk of that period, has all by itself caused the subtle alterations in the planet's eco-system.

It has always struck me of the greatest display of mankind's arrogance.

It must be us! It can't possibly be the huge unknown of this planet's natural system, or the fluctuation over billions of years of the environment, or factors relating to solar activity or the ever lessening impact of the Moon.

No, it must be all those years of coal powered factories, water mills, wind mills, canals, 0.3 litre cars started by hand crank, or even steam ship.

And, naturally, pollution only started then and only got far worse after 1945. Because, you must remember, methane produced by mainly landfill, horses and livestock, is not a major greenhouse gas and has no way contributed to the issue (in the US by 1915 there were 21 million domestic horses, 3.5 million in cities alone) and has increased by 150% since the 1700s.

And let's not get onto Nitrous Oxide or Sulphur Hexafluoride....

So why shouldn't he tell them to fuck off? They have gone completely mental about it because he is a non-believer, as if that somehow negates his view or the evidence that supports him.

One thing they never really confront is why they are so scared. The reality is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the planet and everything to do with the loss of 'civilisation', therefore requiring the fundamental alteration in society. The planet has been far hotter, far colder, the oceans deeper and shallower all in recent geological history. There has been more and less CO2 even. The planet will cope, it will recover from any 'disaster' that may occur.

They also always, 100%, forget to mention: CO2 increases come after temperature rises, not before. Although proven, it is never mentioned. It is also basic science, the temperature goes up, ice melts, climate changes, gases are released. People also helpfully forget where this CO2 is coming from, that is, it is being burnt from its storage in fossilised plants and animals, who absorbed it all in the first place.

The Green lobby has become far too powerful and far too vocal. For many it has replaced religion as the means to power and influence, let alone something to dedicate one's life to. They scream and shout, but rarely, if at all, speak any facts, or evidence.

They say things like 'the majority of scientists are with us', but never actually cite that evidence or those scientists. Yes, the climate is changing, that is not the issue, the issue is why.

UK 2009: The most bizarre case of 'fiddling while Rome burns'

This isn't the first time I've highlighted this, but how and why is this Labour government managing to get away with destroying the country without much being said or done about it?

The last time the country was in such a terrible state was in the late 1970s when Jim Callaghan was PM. He succumbed to a vote of no confidence due to the crisis in the economy and the tumultuous industrial unrest and lost the subsequent general election. Callaghan had the added legitimacy of actually being leader of his party when voted into office and the Prime-ministership, unlike our current Stalinist leader.

Anyone around 30 and older will of course remember that when Black Wednesday in 1992 hit, it was game over for the Tories barely months after they had won the general election. They'd lost their reputation for handling the economy and everything they did thereafter was slammed by the media. Sleaze, affairs, cash for questions all these things were nails in the coffin.

But what's happening now? All the corruption and unabashed arrogance and misdeeds are far from fatal for Labour politicians. The national debt has sky rocketed to unprecedented proportions and the economy has been so badly mismanaged that our current predicament can largely be traced back to specific policies of Gordon Brown whilst Chancellor.

Instead of this leading to a complete breakdown in the government and a general election, it has almost galvanised them.

And the people? Not interested. If anything, they cower away in the banality of their lives in surveillance, UK PLC Britain, somehow conning themselves that all of this is normal, and Britain is supposed to be this wrecked - and furthermore, Brown is doing a good job of holding up the country after the bankers have ruined it. Self-delusion and rampant over-simplicity extraordinaire.

The only conclusion I can reach, as far as the media goes, is that the state of journalism in Britain now is so bad that it can't do much to properly expose the government and bring it to account, even were it so inclined.

Dacre's hankering for his knighthood has meant that he has clever sculpted the Daily Mail editorial line to show Brown in a fairly positive light. As though he were the paragon of integrity, the epitome of the British Protestant, Calvinist work ethic, the man of no spin and no flair, but a man of hard work and perseverance.

The Express is fairly critical of the government. But its journalism is shit and no-one reads it.

The Sun sold out to New Labour in such a bad way, that it'll take years for the ideological brainwashing to wear off. Sun readers, by and large, are spectacularly impressionable and sadly, because they've been led down the path of thinking a Labour government can be acceptable and a good idea, years will pass before the newer editorial lines feed in properly. Those brains are malleable but when they need reworking, it takes time.

The Mirror has always been a pile of moronic maggot shit, and will therefore continue to spoon feed its shockingly dim readership whatever post modern left wing wank it conjures up fro the depths of its 'literary' Colon.

The Guardian and the BBC are so far up Brown's arse, they've run out of space in the bowel region and have popped up through his one eyed trouser snake, up through his one Scottish eye, into his idiot brain and through his thick follicles, where they end up oozing all over the place much like Brown's hair grease.

The Telegraph is currently in a form of civil war due to a bizarre death wish to cut costs in such a way and to such an extent that there are no talented hacks left. The paper is also obsessed with celebs, and it is the front runner in the competition for the World's Most Boring Newspaper 2009. William Hill have stopped taking bets.

The Times is OK, but it's owned by Murdoch and Murdoch doesn't have much time for the Tories. He's comfortable with his relationship with New Labour, to the extent that he knows there's not much point in swapping sides, so very little is done to challenge or dig deep.

Channel 4 is a liberal left wing broadcaster. ITV is the world's most depressing, dumbed down pile of lower-middle class bollocks. And Sky is a joke for all the obvious reasons.

CNN and Fox are U.S. based and think the U.K. is a small islet off the coast of Nova Scotia where Margaret Thatcher leads the main opposition against Tony Blair.

Al Jazeera are too busy talking about Gaza and George Bush to care about this shit hole, unless there's a piece on where all the Mid East's terrorists have all disappeared to.

This country's best investigative journalists don't work anymore...because they are all dead.

So that leaves us with people like Matthew Paris, Bruce Anderson, Libby Purves, Simon Heffer, Polly Toynbee, Will Hutton, and Johann fucking Hari.

Ber, fucking, rill, iant.

They're either so old school and slightly mad, that they may as well rehash the same piece they wrote in early May 1987 over and over and over again. Content wise, no-one would notice. Or, they are of the newer generation of hacks, that sit about on google all day clicking the mouse over Reuters stories and archived essays by so-called intellectuals. When not doing that, they spend their time publicising gruelling trips to war ravaged regions, as they slip off the escorted flight and into the cab to the Holiday Inn, where Mohammed is ready to be interviewed in the hotel bar.

It's shit. Really, it is. The media has gone down-hill faster than the toboggan I saw out my window earlier last week.

I like to think, and this is a scary one, that the reason why Labour are getting away with blue murder is because of media complicity and complacency.

I don't want to comprehend of the alternative reason - that people have given up, are totally apathetic to politics and that the Tories are such a poor choice of party to vote for, it's all much of a muchness.

In reality, there is a mix of all these factors. What I don't want to believe, but am coming round to believing, is that the Tories really are the wet liberal gutless shits that people like Peter Hitchens has them down as.

As time goes on, this daunting thought impresses itself on me more and more.

Tell me, where is Cameron? And why does he always spout such Blairite bollocks when in front of a camera? Talking about green issues concerning the Heathrow runway, and unfair ways people are affected and injured by an unaccommodating welfare state. What's that all about?

Why does it take the President of France to come along and do the job of sticking the boot in nicely?

If things were healthy and going normally in this downward slipping country, there would be no question of Brown waiting till 2010 to call an election. He would have no choice because the matter would be decided. How he is still there, and able to call the shots with such ease, totally unchallenged, given what he has done to this country, is utterly amazing.

The Bible as the word of God

The Bible being the word of God. It's interesting concept. Let's stand back a bit and have a look......


You have a load of stuff said by someone who claims to be the son of God. Not God, his son, his offspring outside of wedlock. He writes none of this down as he’s a bit tied up, but his followers are on the ball and are taking notes. They don’t write it down, just mental notes.

He dies and years later these followers start getting some ink going, their getting on and the memories are fading a bit. They all contradict each other. Other bits are added by people who were never even there that contradict the eye witness accounts even more.

In fact, the new bits have a totally different angle from the original.

Anyways, a few hundred years later its decided that a bit of editing needs to happen for the Reader's Digest version of all this, you know, to make it easier for people to read to other people in a language they don't speak. The boring accounts are dumped, the ones that are a bit harsh are lost. The new bits and the best and most contradictory bits are kept.

It is the definitive word of God.

This is pointed out as a bit of an issue and a nice solution is played out. This son of God guy wasn’t just the son, he was actually God. This happens all the time of course, where the son and father are literally the same meta-physical entity. In fact, even in death, they are still the same, because this is obvious. God cannot die, but the son can and he is God, who cannot die, but when the son dies he is back to being God whilst still being the ghost and sitting next to him.

So its all sorted. The son, the father, and the ghost are all one person at the same time (and of course it raises serious questions about mental illness, as he has basically been talking to himself for 30 odd years). Therefore the mental notes that were later written down, edited, shifted and re-edited are in fact the word of God. Even the new bits that were taken down by people who weren’t even there are in fact the word of God, because a ghost of the son/father appeared to them and gave them a few pointers.

FACT

British Reveal Torture History

Following the media coverage of two English Judges being told to keep mum, the British government has released archived documents that show the in depth history of the effectiveness of British torture.

The most amazing of these documents are from 1954, concerning a Private Kurt Benz of the German Army (Book Club) Driving Core.

Despite being a simple driver who joined the army at 16 and only ever drove low profile Nazi officials of the book club a total of three times between 1944 and 1945, Benz was picked up by British forces in western Germany and transferred to Military 'Intelligence' to be questioned. After being moved to Paris, then to northern Scotland and then finally to the Isle of Man his surviving family members tracked him down in 1953 and requested his release.

Documents reveal that in 1954 two British officers repeatedly beat the soles of his feet whilst using a cattle prod on his rectum demanding 'Tell us the secret German invasion plans! Tell us Hitler's whereabouts!' for two days straight before sending him back to his cell to think about what he had done. Each time Benz answered that he had no idea, that he was only a simple driver, had never met Hitler and it was nineteen fifty fucking four.

Upon release in 1955 he was deemed a security risk and was followed by a team of secret agents until his death in 1983. As late as 1975 the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson stated that 'We must find out what else Benz knows about the secret German invasion plans for 1943 if we are to ever defend ourselves from Hitler's armies'.

The Home Office has said that these documents prove beyond doubt that the torture of enemies of the state has already saved the nation before, in 1943, because of the information Kurt Benz was finally forced to provide in 1955.

It has also transpired that President Obama himself called the Queen last week and told her 'Tell your Judge fuckers to shut the fuck up bitch you hear me? I ain't nobodies fool, if you don't get them wig wearing motherfuckers to keep it zipped, I'm gonna fuck you up. Dig?'

Obama is coming unstuck already

I hate to say I told you so, but, er, I told you so.

When Obama won the presidency, I noted on our old Wordpress blog that this wasn't a disaster as foretold by American and British right-wingers. Obama isn't some mad, swivel eyed socialist. But what I did overtly state was that Obama will prove, to everyone's grave disappointment, to be useless, ineffectual, dithering in a 'third way' sense and basically just another Tony Blair figure except with darker skin.

The only thing that thwarts my near perfect prediction is the fact that Obama's myth is unravelling far faster than Blair's ridiculous canonisation - Blair's political Honeymoon period lasted from May 1997 all the way through to around 2000. It was only after his second election win that people started to get a bit jaded and fatigued of new labour uselessness.

A few weeks into the job, and Obama has fudged and bumbled his way through several crises, all of which worrying show him to be a bit of a lightweight, fairly useless and unable to make astute political judgements.

First off, he has given mixed and inconsistent messages over gitmo bay. His first announcement as President was to announce the camp's closure. Yet this week we see that his administration is directly implicated in an aggressive policy of silencing evidence of US torture of a 'terrorist' detainee at the camp. So on the one hand he has pissed off the section of US society that wants the camp to remain open, in the 'war on T'rrrrr'. And on the other he has pissed off liberals and disappointed his Guardian reading fans in Europe, who till now stood by the roadside with their willies out jacking off in open, hand wringing adulation at the world's new Messianic saviour. Glum faces in Clerkenwell today no doubt.

Second up, we have the ridiculous, weak-willed and spineless watering down of Obama's 'Buy American' campaign, designed to pander to unions and key workers. Predictably, though seemingly not to him, his panicking bout of protectionism was faced with fury from the EU who quelle surprise threatened him with a trade war. So it seems he's cowering down and going back on his initial position. What terrible political judgement, and what a useless and pointless waste of time. He may as well have sat back and did nothing. Again, he's pissing everyone off and making no friends.

Thirdly, Obama has now produced his equivalent of Blair's 'pretty straight guy' speech, which followed the Bernie Ecclestone affair. Obama has come out and admitted he 'screwed up' by appointing two key Democrats to the White House who were then exposed for tax evasion. The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment, and again, points negatively at Obama's skills of judgement.

Three fairly embarrassing fuck ups, all back to back. It won't get any better from here on, will it? As with Blair, the cold, subconscious realisation will set in that he's out of his depth. So the future of his administration will be characterised by a series of embarrassing climb downs, spun propaganda, hyped up 'achievements', watered down useless policies and ultimately, that old chestnut, foreign policy escapades to take the attention off the disastrous home front.

Unless he takes his pecker out the apple pie and gets down to the harsh reality of politics, he'll flounder and will, as I predicted, wind up as one of the most disappointing let downs in the history of US politics.

My American friends, you will in due course experience what New labour fanatics went through in the years following the 1997 rout of the Conservative Party.

Obama is your Tony Blair. I feel for you, I really do.

Snow, Schools and Retarded Parents - time for a rant

OK, deep breath and count to ten. This is the advice that is supposed to work when one is under enormous duress to fucking crush someone's fucking head under a boulder due to an outbreak of societal stupidity and fuck-muppetry.

The front page of the Telegraph, online edition, has this article explaining the nationwide outrage of parents because schools have closed down due to the snow and bad weather.

Let me get my initial angst out of the way, before I begin in earnest, by correctly branding all of these outraged parents as total and utter cunts.

Thank you.

Now the deal is this. It's part of British tradition that when there's a lot of snow (which we all know this country can't handle, so get over it) schools shut. It's how we do shit here in Britain. Lots of snow, it all goes a bit Pete Tong, schools close, kids love it, it's an excuse for having a good old laugh and a bit of fun outdoors (you know, that place outside of the four walls and the plasma where there's fresh air and no Corrie) and it's a break from the modern day norm.

So what is this bizarre and totally disproportionate national rage at schools for packing it in for a couple of days?

I've thought about it, and can only come to this depressing conclusion. More parents work longer hours and full time (both parents) and more parents have less time or less inclination to deal with things like their children, and sorting out days off and childcare is all so much of a hassle. Because, you know, paying for those Euro-box car installments and Sky subs and ill-timed mortgages are massively more important than spending a bit of time on your fucking kids.

People really and truly fuck me off, they really do. There will be parents out there, barely older than me, who are kicking off at all this, yet will, like me, have thoroughly enjoyed those fleeting moments pelting mates with snow back in the late '80s. Back then, and it wasn't exactly at the time of the fucking Blitz, parents either sorted their shit out without crying, or mum was at home or part time so it wasn't a big fucking whoop. Suddenly, barely a generation on, and there's this faux protestant work ethic fucking bullshit red herring dangled in front of us (see the Daily Nazi for more details) and we're to believe that today's parents can't stomach a lack of work discipline.

Yes, that's right, back to work you lazy teachers and educate my son and daughter! How dare you destroy their education by letting them out of the classroom for a few hours. My taxes paid for those Bunsen burners.

Hypocritical cunts to a man and woman.

Just think about what you are prioritising for a moment, you hoodwinking, selfish, pathetic little turd. Is your shitty little career really that important, and are things that tough that sorting your kids out for some impromptu time off school is that much of a drama?

It's people like you that make this country the moribund, depressing, carbon copy, boring, staid, stoic, middle class suburban fuck hole that it is. Fuck off and shove your daily mail up your motherfucking arses you curmudgeonly cunts.

Fuck heads.

Carol Thatcher and that BBC 'racism' story - some comments

So Carol Thatcher was having a chat 'back stage', off-air with Adrian Chiles in attendance. Thatcher made a remark about a male tennis player reminding her of the Golliwog portrayal from her childhood days. Next thing, Chiles snitched, the media go mental and the BBC drop her from the One Show schedule. In fact, the BBC appear to have dropped her from any BBC appearance henceforth.

The Times story is here, in case you haven't fully appraised yourself of the incident.

Now, I find this very interesting. I tend to see most things in life through a Libertarian lens. I am a freedom of speech fundamentalist. This basically means I think people should say what they want, feel and believe. Particularly in this context, where the offending word was uttered during a private conversation. The matter should have been addressed by the offended parties privately. What happened was nothing short of gutless snitching. It's not like she went off on a mad spitting rant about how the Jews deserved to go up in smoke at Auschwitz, is it? She made a stupid, shitty remark that should have gone no further than that chat. Personally, I think Chiles is a wanker for what he did.

But there is a balance here. The golliwog comment, whilst being a comment that was Thatcher's right to make without fear of losing her role or position, is worrying. I don't think there was any malicious intent, but comments like that speak volumes about how detached the commenter is from social norms. It's obviously offensive to black people and it's enormously demeaning to people of African origin who have a certain type of hair (weirdly, my hair when uncut and unkempt often resembles a huge Afro, so does that mean my boat race should be on the front of an old jam jar?)

The point is, I think it's good to have an opinion on this comment, and people should be free to tell her what they think of the comment and choose whether they want to watch her programmes as a result. If her comment resulted in so many complaints that it was clear the viewing ratings for her show would plummet, then there's a supply and demand, free market case for dropping her.

But the row has been purely media and BBC driven. How many people have come forward to complain about all this and pledge not to watch the BBC or that particular show? I bet there are no stats for this because it's blown up so quickly.

So who is making the decisions here? Unelected, dogmatic, probably left wing and enormously arrogant BBC apparatchiks and idiotic journalists looking for the next race row to hang their coats on.

I'm bored of it and I'm fatigued at what meaningless rows like this are doing to the fabric of our society and democracy.

The fact someone can come so unstuck for something uttered in private, without any rational logic behind any action, is quite staggering. But this is modern Britain for you.

Striking Power Plant Workers, Mandelson and Political Suicide

What the hell does Mandelson think he is doing? In making the comments he has made about the wildcat strikers, essentially accusing them of xenophobia, he is further alienating British labour from, er, British Labour.

As a Libertarian I find the matter of the use of foreign workers somewhat problematic. On the one hand, I believe in the strength and the integrity of the nation state and the contract between state and citizen. In other words, whilst the free market is essential, there does need to be a balance struck between the freedom of movement of labour and the rights of people from this country to get first dibs on jobs.

What Mandy has done, however, is to handle the whole matter as deftly as an England Goalkeeper after a night out at Boujis.

Quite why he felt the need to come out with these unhelpful, inflammatory comments is beyond me. But what's bad for the Labour Party is good for my blood pressure and this country, so happy days.

According to my research, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Sellafield and Heysham (locations of the nuclear power plants, from which the workers have walked out on strike) are located in Labour held constituencies. What's key here, is that these constituencies are held by a Lab majority of approximately 5,000 votes each. With the Tories in second place. Which means they are key marginals and will be fought keenly by the Tories at the next election.

So either Mandy doesn't care anymore and will say anything he likes because he knows they've lost anyway and he wants to defend Labour's disastrous immigration policy to the last, or, he's the thickest cunt in the history of modern British politics.

By hacking off swathes of traditional Labour heartland vote, he's whacking the proverbial nail into the Labour Party coffin.

Keep it up Mando. I suppose it's comfort time now you're in the Lords. You can be as openly snobbish in that condescending, spiteful, disloyal New Labour quasi-socialist manner all you want. No seat to defend and all that.

Rum old life, politics.