Book of the Month - A Review

Big recommendation here, for all B&D fans who are interested in international politics, globalisation, organised crime and Libertarian solutions to world problems.

I've just finished reading Misha Glenny's 'McMafia'. What a storming read. This is one of the best non-fiction books I've read in a long time.

In a nutshell, Glenny is an expert on organised crime in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, but this isn't some turgid 'thugs and drugs' expose, this is an eloquently written, journalistic, comprehensive and through analysis of how organised crime flourished in the years following the onset of globalisation and the collapse of Communism at the end of the 80s and beginning of the '90s.

Glenny takes each chapter and crafts it into a historical, political and case study specific triumph, taking you on a sort of dark Wicker's World tour of some of the darkest, sin and crime ridden places across the globe.

Starting off with Eastern Europe, Russia and the Balkans, Glenny takes you on a grim and fascinating journey through the underworlds of South Africa, Columbia, China, Brazil and the Middle East, explaining how our choices as consumers feed into the multi-trillion dollar organised crime rackets which eat away at the fabric of societies everywhere. Coke leaves a trail of red, not white, and the more you read the more sinister is the truth.

"Thanks for the tea, Demetriou. You 'orrible cunt."

One of the most powerful messages to come from his book relates to drugs and the so-called 'War on Drugs'. Misha Glenny explains why this attempt, principally by the US, has failed and how the billions spent every year in combating drugs empires are wasted. He shows that the industry is so powerful and the demand so huge, that to truly counter drugs, drugs must themselves cease to be illegal and therefore cease to be controlled by the murky world of gangsters and criminal enterprises. He, wittingly or unwittingly, sets out a brilliant Libertarian argument for how nation states can deal with drugs; bringing about a real solution to modern crime.

Just as you're starting to consider some of his points quite anti-capitalist and Guardian-ish, he comes up with points that knock down this illusion. He is immensely balanced, and smashes into the old socialist models with more gusto than he does the free market ideals.

His views on drugs are brilliantly Libertarian, and his writing is infused with humanity and reason. Not a soppy, wet, pious liberal sense of humanity and reason, but a proper and sincere sense, which leaves you realising that not all anti-globalisation folks out there are stuck up lefty wankers like Johann Hari and the rest of the shower of shite that propagandise for the liberal print media.

So, without further ado, I thoroughly implore you to go out and buy this book. You won't regret it, and no, I'm not a relative of his and I don't get a cut.

Till next time, dear Boaty & D readers. And to those folks that oft visit, thanks for coming back and staying loyal.

Thursday night update

Dear Readers

Pine no longer, your beloved Boaty and D are back in action. I've been out of the blogging loop the last week or so because of major wireless Internet techy issues with my PC. I won't bore you about it, other than to say that computer technology to the noughties is like British cars were to the 70s. Shit and only worth getting involved in at the top end of the spectrum. If you're a pleb like me, everything's shit, fails to work and winds you up.

Much like an Austin Princess. But boy did that car warm my heart when it appeared on the last episode of Ashes to Ashes. Yes, the series is excellent and comes Boaty & D recommended.

Other than that, I continue to be a huge fan of the Apprentice. I'm not alone, as 7.5 million people tuned into it last night, according to the Daily Nazi and other sources. Even some Nazi readers, and this is amazing as they hate everything, posted comments showing a glimmer of positive interest. This is a sign.

The news all week as you know has been dominated by twatterings about so-called 'Swine Flu'. Literally, rewind to Sunday earlier this week and I had never heard of it in my life. I go to work, whack up the old net and its full of the stuff. As the Daily Mash brilliantly noted early on, Dacre's pants will no doubt have exploded with jizz at the breaking of the story. No doubt weeks if not months or years will be soaked up with Nazi horror stories about the disease. A disease which, I have no doubt at all, will fizzle out into nothing once a bunch of people have shaken off the equivalent to a bad cold. It'll make SARS (which was a walk in the park) appear like a potter about your back garden.

Not that this will stop the Hate from attempting to scare its banal readership into further wild eyed submission.

Gordon Brown - I usually leave our best and most insightful commentary on our beloved leader to Mr Boatang. But I must stick a quick boot in.

Tomorrow (Friday 1 May) is likely to be full of news about the fact that on the second day running, Brown has lost a parliamentary vote. First on the Gurkhas and now on expenses. Indeed, it's a re-run of Major's last days.

All of this fits in with the long standing commentary of Mr B and I, where we have stated for years that the Tory Party progression was mirroring Labour's history of the 80s. We have finally completed the loop. Well, nearly.

The sad thing is, what this loop entails is the morphing of two humans into one: Blair and Cameron. Two men who appear indecipherable, partly because the latter deliberately models himself on the former. Apart from that being a bad idea, because Blair was useless and all-spin, it's something that the UK public no longer want. This isn't 1996. So why is Cameron acting like he is Blair, and it is?

Hint, Cameron: the Zeitgeist has moved on. You're better off moving towards Hague's or Davis's position, which is where everyone else is at these days: principled right wing, with strong Libertarian credentials (though of course, not enough for my liking, but no-one's perfect in politics).

So we are moving towards the last summer of the decade. Time appears to be flying fast and the dawn is eking along the horizons of my youth. I have said goodbye to my twenties and hello to grey hair.

Life can be scary in times like this. The world is a lonely place it seems, and there are more uncertainties now than there has been for decades.

But, at least I have a job and at least there's not a huge chance I'll be called up to fight a war in which I am at least guaranteed an obliterated limb or three.

I guess I'm also lucky that I was not in a certain part of Holland earlier on today. News Link.

Like Ashes to Ashes, this could have resulted in the 'death of a Princess'. Now that would have been really sad.



Adios till next time, which, if I'm feeling generous, might be in about an hour or so.

Get Gordon Brown To Resign

It's one of those pointless Number 10 website petitions, but it's getting publicity which could embaress Gordon. So sign it if you want to and see him squirm.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Gordon Brown and Labour Betray The Gurkhas

Phil Woolas and Gordon Brown have decided that the Gurkhas do not deserve the right to reside in the United Kingdom after they have retired from service.

Let me make the Boatang and Demetriou position on this very clear: this is a fucking disgrace of the most cowardly and pathetic kind.

These men entered a competition to get into one of the most feared and respected army units on the planet and allowed to do it as a matter of honour 200 years after conquest by the Empire. They didn't walk into a recruiting office and sign up because they couldn't get a job, they didn't sign up because they flunked out of school, they didn't sign up because they saw an advert on the telly and thought 'Wow, mountain bike skiing looks really fun'. They signed up because they are proud people who want the honour of being in that brigade.

Gordon Brown has decided that that isn't enough because to grant them the right of residency in exchange for getting fucking shot at would let a claimed 100,000 (dependents included, so a made up estimate) into the country. And? Since the brigade was created an estimated 45,000 have given their lives for this country. Countless thousands have lost limbs or been injured. Not a quibble, not a moan, not a strike or a demand for recognition by rank. Just determination to carry on and fight for a Queen and country that isn't even theirs.

I think I have now fucked off everyone. My job is done

And that is the crux of this. They aren't a dependency, they are not a colony. They are allowed by the Nepalese government to join the British Army because of the sheer fuck off honour of it.

My Dad was in the Navy and he once told that one of the most impressive things he ever saw was in a bar in Hong Kong. A group of Americans were getting shirty with some Aussies about service in Vietnam and it was going to kick off. Attached to our convict cousins was a group of Gurkhas. As it got very heated a Gurkha turned around and told the American in no uncertain terms to fuck off, the American didn't like that and asked who this yella fella thought he was. An Aussie piped up that this guy was a Gurkha who was the single toughest soldier he had ever served with. The American didn't even think, he shook the Gurkha's hand and walked away.

That is the reputation these guys have in this world. Everywhere except the Cabinet of this country.

Context: as a member of the EU we have let in millions over the years, many return, many stay. From the unemployed Estonian to the German doctor, we let them in for good, open arms. That's fine (to a degree), but I can stake everything I own that not one of them has had their arms blown blown off for this country. Let alone be prepared to get shot on the face or blown to pieces.
These men, quite simply, deserve everything we can give them and a smile while we do to boot. Exactly the same as every other servicemen who is prepared to put their lives on the line when called to do so.

This what they have to do to get in if they retired pre-1997(at least one): Three years continuous residence in the UK during or after service; Close family in the UK; A bravery award of level one to three; Service of 20 years or more in the Gurkha brigade; Chronic or long-term medical condition caused or aggravated by service. Or they must meet at least two of: Awarded a UK MoD disability pension but no longer have a chronic medical condition; Mentioned in dispatches; Service of 10 years, or a campaign medal for active service.

Sir Ralph Turner, First World War: "As I write these last words, my thoughts return to you who were my comrades, the stubborn and indomitable peasants of Nepal. Once more I hear the laughter with which you greeted every hardship. Once more I see you in your bivouacs or about your fires, on forced march or in the trenches, now shivering with wet and cold, now scorched by a pitiless and burning sun. Uncomplaining you endure hunger and thirst and wounds; and at the last your unwavering lines disappear into the smoke and wrath of battle. Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you."

It is sick joke. What else does a person have to do to become a citizen of this country? The government should hang their heads in shame at this decision because they have just stuck two fingers up at a group of the most loyal, toughest, honorable men in our armed forces who any soldier, sailor or airman would describe as a privilege to serve with.

Just sums this 'government' up for me.

Here is the Wiki about the Gurkhas if you want to read up on them.

Labour aren't real socialist, they aren't real capitalist, so what are they?

Lazy thinkers and media stooges of New Labour and 'social democracy' in Britain like to think that the Labour Party offers policies that contain a fair mix of both capitalist free market economics and reasoned, balanced socialism, forming a political creed the type of which Anthony Giddens wrote about in his book 'The Third Way' [link].

A lot of people were hoodwinked by this in the Blairite years. While Blair concentrated on his media image and foreign sojourns, Brown was behind the scenes running the show and sewing the seeds for financial disaster. Except it wasn't just economic lunacy he was up to...Brown was stirring a far more sinister cauldron and now he's in the hot seat, the country has flipped the 'Warp' lever and gone into overdrive.

What we have now is a situation where the 'Labour Party' represents anyone but Labour. The party was set up at the beginning of the 20th century out of the early Trade Union movement. They then went on to represent the working classes, i.e. UK Labour.

Yet today, in continuing to sell themselves as the party of the have nots and hard workers, Labour have committed their most fundamental mistake. Firstly the Labour government and its weaselly MPs have betrayed their roots and their voters by lying. Secondly, they've failed to stop the lie from being exposed. Blair had a Rolls Royce media spin machine for a reason. He had to keep the bullshit from being exposed. Brown doesn't bother with that, hence why the public are majorly fucked off and hence why the Libertarian movement has exploded onto the scene: along with Superheroes like Mr B and I. Email us for paypal details; we don't accept cheques. Saving the country doesn't come cheap.

In all seriousness, what is happening is no laughing matter and least of all for the working classes, which these days may be considered to overlap with a huge swathe of the struggling, disenfranchised middle class.

We can probably all agree, or nearly all agree, that Labour don't serve their core, base constituent vote anymore. Since Brown took over, it is ever more clear that Labour don't support the middle classes, and they certainly don't support small businesses.

They are high state interference, high tax, anti the individual and they have no interest in local communities taking local power. It's top down Stalinism.

Except here in lies the crux of this piece - Labour aren't even like the old communists and soviets of the cold war era. This government is like a political force never before seen. It is a new, ugly, mutated monster. A perversion, a bastardisation if you will, forged by a dead in the water ideology, combined with modern day lunatic 'liberal' leftism and power hungry corrupt former Trot politicians who serve in the Cabinet.

Under the old soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe, people would never have been allowed to sit around bumming about at home and not working.

I know this from a visit of mine to Poland, where I took the opportunity to spend time with people with much to say about the old regime and life under the communists. My acquaintances took me to Nova Huta outside of Krakow, to an old apartment kept just as it was from the old days. We sat down, drank vodka and ate gherkins (brilliant. Loved every second) and went ape shit out in the streets in a bashed up Trabant. It was one of the best days of my life.

But what they told me I shan't forget. If a worker did not, for some reason, have a job (which was rare as jobs at the Steel Works were doled out on a platter for those not in employment) then that worker would be paid a visit at their flat by a member of the secret police. They'd turn up in a black Trabant (does it get cooler than that? don't think so) knock on the door, let themselves in and ask Magda why young spotty 18 year old Andrzej is sacking off work. They'd have a fag, eat a gherkin, say thanks for the vodka, and on the way out politely remind Andy that unless he got a job within the next fortnight, he'd be in the shit.

Because, even fucking socialist countries did not tolerate lazy work shy bastards. Here, the state idolises them, probably because the state is an arrogant untouchable body full of liberal lefties who feel bad for the unemployed and 'want to help'. Except this is all terribly misguided and unfair on those who work.

What we have in this country is a state that, for do-gooding as well as cynical reasons, feeds an ever expanding pool of indolent fuckers who not only refuse to work, but think everything including respect and luxuries, are their right and the state owes it them. What's worse, the indolent are never, ever required to work (the New Deal system set up under the DWP is a total joke and everyone who works in a job centre including those I know, realise it is a total joke). They say that people have to prove their willing to look for work, but it's bollocks. The rates of recidivist employment is a disgrace that even fucking Poland and Romania would have deplored.

This has nothing to do with a lack of jobs - this is arrogance, laziness and degeneracy brought about by poor parenting, itself brought about by the welfare state and 20th Century Labour Party politics. Simple as that.

If you work, you get clobbered. Not just in tax, but by crime, fear of crime and by the unravelling of society and manners. Scum bags abound and there's little we can do to stop it, because the government and even their Tory counterparts refuse to tackle these issues.

So if Labour don't support the working or middle classes, but only support underclass scum who probably don't vote anyway, how do they manage to do it? How do they gain enough support to govern?

Well, besides the underclass and welfare addicts, Labour have the support of the super rich and the oligarchs. Never have the scum at the top done as well as they have under Labour. Labour and their bent ministers under Blair and Brown have offered these people sanctuary and the ability to evade tax for years, providing fertile ground for them to operate in monopoly structures and systems where they can happily dominate and cream off billions in profit. Look at the situation with corrupt Russian oil and energy barons coming here and making hay. Look at the whole Gazprom issue, the London housing stock issue, the exposes on tax dodges and dodgy associations between Mandelson and certain characters.

And what does Labour get in return? Well, Labour aren't interested in the small cheese are they? Shopkeepers, small business people who probably vote Tory and hate their guts. Labour want the monopolies to come in and turn us into UK PLC for a reason. By allowing huge firms to step in and take large parts of the market, squeezing out the smaller businesses, and by acting decidely un-Labour on Labour legislation, big businesses are able to employ large numbers of cheap workers (Tesco, Asda, Call Centres etc), offer them fuck all rights, probably on contract or min wage, and cream off huge amounts of cash into the bargain. All private sector cash, belonging to the workers not the top cheese, back into the state treasury.

The economy looks good on paper. Employment looks good on paper. Tax from the businesses is there, although disproportionately lower - but this is part of the deal. Everyone is a winner. That is to say, everyone bar people who work, whose real wages and job security is shit, whose actual jobs are boring and limited and where because everything is a monopoly, there are fewer places to work and less competition to drive up salaries.

The same goes across the private sector these days. Less companies, but bigger, monopolistic ones, all in league with Brown. All the while, the Public Sector grows off the back of it all. So we have a situation where we are similar to depressing former Stalinism states, except every now and then there's a Tesco plonked in between the pound shop and the job centre.

The arrangement now isn't positive for anyone who isn't part of the rich Labour government-created super elite at the top, and the people at the bottom who are literally paid to sit about, commit crime, or breed, or a combination of all of that. Literally, since Labour came in, the system has changed to stitch up secure married couples, and to reward people to sit at home and breed the next generation of losers and no marks.

All of which consume, and consume and consume. Which feeds into the whole system which Brown loves. He sits down, looks at the books, and sees ways to drain ever more amounts of money into the state treasury without upsetting key friends and allies.

And that, my friend, is what Labour are all about. The 15 percent at the bottom, and the 1.5% at the top. If, as I, you fall into the middling category, you are fucked. You have been fucked since 1997, you just didn't notice till now because Alistair Campbell got a new job and Blair isn't in Number 10 anymore.

So if you asked me to describe Britain under Brown, I would say it was a combination of Batista's Cuba from the early 1950s and Wojciech Jaruzelski's Poland in the 1980s. Except more people wear hi viz jackets, there's a bit more health and safety and the justice system is piss weak.

All in all, pretty un-fucking flattering really. And I have had to live the best years of my life through this fucking shit and the worst is yet to come. If you do not fall into the massive middle bracket, which includes salt of the earth working class folk, and you vote Labour, then you are clearly a lunatic. Or an idiot. Or both.

Why couldn't I be born in the fucking 40s or 50s? At least I wouldn't have had to sweat for a good job with prospects and a good house.

Law of sod. To be born in the late 70s, early 80s, makes you one unlucky motherfucker in these times.

Adios readers, till next time.

Budget 2009 - Part 3, Brown Breaks 2005 Manifesto Pledge On Top Rate Of Tax

Having sunk in, it dawned on me that Gordon Brown has just broken the Tony Blair 2005 General Election Manifesto Pledge not to increase the top rate of tax.

Which he obviously just has.

It was expected to happen in 2011 so that this issue would have been avoided, but as it will come in for April 2010, that would mean he has broken it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4438489.stm

Which re-enforces my point. In order not to break the promise to the nation back in 2005, the new rate of 50% needs to happen after the next election, ie with a new manifesto.

Budget 2009 Part 2

The deficit will be £175 billion this year, that's 11.9% of GDP.

Take a bow that man.

Also a 50% tax on those earning £150,000 will come in from next year. That is higher than the 45% that was rumoured to be announced.

It's okay though, because though on £100,000 a year will lose their pension tax relief.

It is now clear where this is heading - election time. As expected the tosser is using this election to win over the Left and pay the debt by hitting the rich. We need solutions, not politics here.

As Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, the higher tax bands will raise very little money. What he hasn't announced therefore, is the closing of tax avoidance loopholes, without this the above is pointless.

It is also interesting that if the election is in May 2010, then all this kicks in a month before. As I have said many times, I think the election will be the end of 2009 to avoid unpleasant headlines.

The Budget 2009 Part 1, Darling Admits It's All Screwed

In the first big admission of the Budget Darling has admitted that the economy is now fucked to the tune of 3.5% this year, which makes it the worst since the war.

Well done Gordon, well done Ali, off you go then. Bye bye.

We also have the very important re0training of long term unemployed under 25s. I really don't know how the economy has coped without all the 23 year old unemployed University of Frome Film Art graduates to be honest and I for one am glad that tens of millions of pounds will be spent training them all in the things they didn't learn within the Labour education system.

As long as the cash doesn't go to helping the people with kids and mortgages and stuff.

PS, it's £260 million (if you are 23 then your entire educationwas under this government).

Cunt.

Andy Burnham Keeps His Job - Bob Quick Loses His

I'm confused, there, I said it. Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for pictures and stuff, left a briefcase on train.

"Okay", we all say, "Hell I've left loads of stuff on public transport". Except that stuff wasn't marked 'Restricted' and wasn't the property of the State. Also, this guy got on a train from the North and the briefcase was found in Glasgow. So this thing had done the trip all the way back past where he came from and all the way to Scotland. Then it was handed in.

You will also struggle to find this story on the BBC of course and it's buried deep on the Guardian site.

What takes me aback about this, the source of my confusion if you will, is the general context. Today Bob Quick, the anti-terror copper who 'quit' a couple of weeks ago, was found to have, in effect, done nothing wrong.

The guy basically got out the car in Downing Street with a bit of paper the wrong way round and a scumbag pap decided to zoom in and, in the interests of national security you understand, sold the pictures to papers who, in the interests of national security, published them. 'What's a Ethic' Smith has stated

The fact that these papers were inadvertently made public did not make any
difference to the decision to carry out arrests - it simply changed the timing
by a matter of hours

So it had no impact. Yet this senior and experienced officer was hung out to dry, by the whole House, and he was to all intents and purposes sacked.

As the Telegraph states, last year such documents, although more sensitive, were found on a train and handed to the BBC. The culprit was a Richard Jackson and he was a senior at the Home Office. His punishment? He was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act then fined £2,500 and then demoted by three grades.

Andy Burnham? Nothing. Not a thing.

What happened was unacceptable and I apologise unreservedly

So Andy, it was unacceptable...but you still have a job. So not that unacceptable. Unlike Quick's slip being caught by pond life, which was so disgusting that he lost his job and career. Or Mr Jackson's forgetfulness which was quite simply horrifying to such an extent that he was prosecuted and his career went up in smoke.

If a member of the Cabinet cannot look after a briefcase (and at which point did he go 'Oh poo, I've left me case on the train'?), what chance has he got of looking after anything else, much less if in the future he goes up in the world and said case has something seriously sensitive in it?

The double standards are appalling in this government.

Edit

Now bloody Blears has done it! "she has apologised to the prime minister and takes it as a lesson to be extra careful in future", well, that's all okay then.

'W.' the Movie, religion and some personal reflections

I've finally managed to digest my millionth DVD of the month, after giving it much contemplation (always a sign of a good film for me, if my brain munches over it for days afterwards).

'W.' The movie. It's an Oliver Stone film, with Josh Brolin playing the starring role of George W. Bush. You remember him don't you? The Herod style character that came before Jesus the Messiah, AKA Barry O.

It was a good film because, despite the minds behind the production (lefty anti-Republican types of a sort of Michael Moore stature) it was incredibly balanced, and the characters and plot lines were very well played.

Rather than show Bush (or 'Bushy' as he likes to be called by chums) in the sort of evil light Guardian journalists and readers would have him bask in, the film in fact follows Bush as a young man, growing older and making the sorts of mistakes a lot of trustafarian brats do out there in the States - except this one became Pres.

You can't argue with the portrayal. Because the facts are all there and speak for themselves. But instead of showing him sniff coke and act like a Tuesday the viewer is given an entirely different journey through Bush's life, first as a graduate, then a bit of a ne'er do well in various trades, then a junior politician, then President in charge of the decision to sack off the UN and invade the Middle East.

You don't come away hating him, you come away thinking - 'shit, what a sad, poor dumb bastard and how did someone so silly attain all that power?'

Stone shows him consistently as bumbling, hapless, aimless, both passionate and dispassionate at the same time, dim, superstitious and moral. Yes, I think it shows him as someone who eventually grows up a little and someone who actually believes in a set of moral codes, regardless of the foolhardy nature of his morals and world view.

There is one aspect to the film that got me dozing away in my little cloud cuckoo daydream land. A land that generally starts off quite cloud based and with positive vibes, but then generally goes a bit awry after a few minutes with some odd things floating about before descending into a pit of serpents. I'll start chewing over my 'issues' and before I know it my mind switches into 'safe mode', where I entertain myself by thinking of all the different ways and permutations of methods I could use to defend my house from zombies.

Carlyle's character sent packing 28 Weeks Later: if I had 48 hours warning of a zombie advance, my home defence system would be The Tits. See my next article for more details

Have I digressed? I think I just might have done.

Religion. 'W.' the movie got me thinking about religion. Because if there's one theme that struck home about the film, it is the power of religion (AKA superstition) to take hold of a person's mind and dictate how they think, live and even breath.

Despite the secular condition of British society these days, religion plays as big a part, if not bigger, than it has done in years past. Religion is like Nationalism. You can brush it under the carpet, pretend it isn't there, get schools to ignore it, politicians to tarnish it and right wing newspapers to lament its demise, yet it keeps popping back up your nose like a fart in a car.

Our regular readers will know me as being an atheist, and one that is fairly sceptical of religion at the best of times. But I believe, as I do with pretty much most things, that it ought to be tolerated. Respected? That's a whole different question. I do not have to respect anything should I choose not to and this is something the dogmatic in our society needs to recognise as a fundamental right of man.

But what is more annoying in contemporary Britain is not so much the dogmatists out there that bleat on about how people must show respect and 'the values of diversity' towards religion and the religious (Orwellian bullspeak if ever I heard it), but those people who eulogise religion - mostly the Christian faith.

Conservatives today like to do this, because it fits in with their pathetic world-view that a) society used to be marvellous, b) it not longer is and c) one of the main reasons for this disintegration is the decline in religion - i.e Christianity was the foundation, the bedrock....zzzzzzz *gone, one sheep, two sheep...*

A lot of Mail readers do this. They hate younger people, think everything is shit and nothing now is any good, can be any good and all that came before 1970 was much much better. Secular and religious conservatives often come together in this, and I have even heard secular conservatives agree with religious ones that things were much better when people feared God, feared hell, went to church and had respect for authority, particularly a 'higher authority.

As well they might - their common ally here is a force for popular control of the masses. A social tool that was the better alternative to state intervention. Which probably explains why the now largely secular Daily Mail newspaper wishes for a strong conservative state, outside of the overweening influence of the church, but one very much based on old fashioned, traditional and Christian-based values back up by a strong authoritarian hand.

The lowest common denominating factor here must be remembered. 'Conservatives' of this ilk like religion, not necessarily because they care so much for the salvation of lost souls, but because they can't bear the notion of individuals running around doing things they don't approve of or feel jealous about. End of.

A truly advanced, civilised, well ordered and nice society does not, de facto, require religion to be heavily set in its 'DNA'.

Perhaps I can offer some personal experiences in order to flesh out some of the underlying reasons why I take this line. But first, an illustration, because I've been writing quite a bit since the Robert Carlyle picture and I need some shit in here to break up the words. Here's one I found on google images earlier.

A religious person being weird in public: my zombie-proof house would also include features that repel mind-warping evangelists.

The 'D' once went through a church phase. I was about 15. Naive, gullible, bored. As I said, I was 15. I didn't ever buy into it properly. I went along because my mate was the son of a preacher man, and I had naff all else to do and my dad was weird about me playing my stereo so I tended to use any excuse to get out of the house. Most lads probably do things like drugs and getting Tracey pregnant - I went the whole mad hog and went to Sunday school for a while and kicked back with some real fuck heads.

The churches I ended up going to were worse than most. Not just because of the extreme stuff that got pumped out over the pulpit. They were suburban churches. So, they didn't have the popular vibrancy and buzz of inner city churches, and they didn't have the aesthetic beauty of rural churches. They were suck-arse suburban piss holes, frequented by a mixture of the bland and the outright insane, all totally convinced that in order to make it to heaven, they needed to balls up this life in the most spectacularly depressing fashion conjured from the depths of the human mind.

What kept me going back was fascination. I wanted to learn what made people tick, what made people think this way, be so convinced of a path because of what was laid out in a religious text translated through various languages, times, people and contexts.

The more I asked, the colder the responses got. Questions don't go down well with Christians. Not the ones I encountered. And boy did I ask a lot of questions. Challenging questions too. Not the usual wanky 'how can there be a God because the world is so mean!', I mean, shit with logic. Hence why I was cast as a bit of a black sheep. A trouble maker. Hey, I guess some things never change.

But What kept me from going back, after a while, was the malevolence. Once you get under the shallow surface of the smiles and the faux interest, all you have are confused and upset people who range between odd and totally fucked in the head who have one motive in life and one motive only - to reach heaven. Because getting people converted and preaching to others to 'save souls' is a requirement for salvation according to the Bible, the Christians I met were single-mindedly determined to fill most conversations and most motives for initiating conversation with Jesus.

They were not interested in me, or anyone, they were interested in spreading the word. Which is tricky, because, you see, spreading the word (as in my experiences) was not simply about having a nice pally chat about a 'relationship with Christ' and eternal peace etc. It was about the darker stuff too. The stuff Christians like to throw a blanket over until they've got you listening, then wham! You're caught in the gaze.

Hell.

I was told by one woman at a Baptist church I went to that my Nan was going to hell because she did not go to church. I explained very clearly that she was in her 80s, not well enough to leave her house and she was a committed Christian, but a private one and she wanted to do her religious thing privately in her own space. I was then told by this stupid arrogant fucker (who I shall never forget) that 'communion' was essential, in other words hanging out with idiots like her and her pals, and that she knew of an old lady who was on the cusp of death in a wheelchair but who still managed it. Rather reminiscent of a deranged apparatchik from a totalitarian regime, smiling at the boot camp guard whilst trying to get him to commit a dying detainee to one last day's worth of labour.

I remember this upsetting, fruitless discussion rumbling on, with me positing some moral and contextual questions about her proclamation and how valid they could be based on my understanding of the Bible. Her parting words on the subject were (with her head held slightly to one side, and a gentle smile on her face) "I'm sorry, but I have to tell you, your grandmother is going to hell and she will burn for all eternity".

Fucking cunt.

Then there was the time when the preacher of this same church persisted in taking me aside after his sermons and asking me why my mate had stopped coming along to the service. I knew the reason: he was scared shitless of his fire and brimstone preaching and the constant threats of hell and damnation from his Sunday School Lieutenant who had a particular hatred of Catholics, gays, atheists and anyone who thought anything sexual - ever. I told him that he stopped coming because he was busy.

What I would get, ritualistically, was a speech about what happens when we become 'too busy for Christ' and the immortal words 'your friend and his parents (he knew all as we were classmates with his son) are spiritually dead'.

Nice. They have no spirit, and he can vouch for this, because they didn't go to his church and listen to him speak at us for an hour every Sunday.

Then there's the time when a member of this congregation kept making sexual advances towards me, along with the odd attempted grope. All in full view of these Christians who looked concerned, but felt the best thing to do was pray. Funny how their intervention failed to reap dividends. I ended up having to tell the bloke to fuck off or feel the wrath, which was met with deranged laughter and threats. It seems the praying from the others helped though - the guy was found dead in his house, from a cocktail of drugs, due to a successful bid for suicide. I heard months later her was diagnosed with schizophrenia at some stage prior to his death. Shame those prayers didn't help him. Not at all ironic that he was embraced by that church though, and was in the process of becoming an Elder.

I could go on and on, I have bags of stories. Like the time when the Evangelical preacher to this other church I started going to dismissed the young people in the church Orchestra on the basis that they were all possessed by the Devil and were his puppets, put on show in order to corrupt and defile the congregation. And the time when the Evangelical preacher told me I was going to hell because I did not read the Bible enough.

By the time I was done with this whole sorry racket, I realised what a total waste of time it was. Life tends to go in that pattern. You do stupid shit, then regret it. If you didn't do stupid shit, you'd regret nothing but would also learn little of life also. And this is the whole point of life, is it not? To examine, experience and learn?

My early twenties was a period where my atheism was put into a concrete mixer, poured out onto my life's road and set. But it didn't stop the encounters with Christian dogmatism coming at me like shit from a cow's arse. When I hit 23, a close mate of mine died. A rare medical abnormality. He was a keen Christian and a big follower of one of my local churches. He introduced me to a few of these guys when I was a teenager. One in particular was a keen fool. One of these 'I used to shag around, do drugs but now I've seen the light' chaps. I.e. He's had his fun, now he's settled down and married and wants to cast judgement on other people for doing the same. These guys were pretty close to my mate.

When I went to the funeral, I saw all these people including the keen fool. I'll never forget his infuriating, smug, arrogant face as I left the church with my sullen grieving non-Christian friends. He turned to me and chirped, "Oh, hello, you were one of 'x's friends weren't you? Yes, I remember him, top bloke he was. Nice day isn't it?"

I couldn't get over it. Here was a close friend and confidante of my dead pal, pretending like he didn't really know or have much connection to him, and that he couldn't be having a nicer and more fun day if he tried. It was like Claudia Schiffer had just caught him on his mobile and asked him out for Champagne and canapes at her Pied-de-Terre in Florence.

I am not naive. I know why the faux cheery display. It was classic of his usual textbook technique at getting non-Christians to jolt awake, think and wise up to God. He wanted me, and my mates, to see that Christians don't care about dying. Dying isn't important, because if you believe, you don't die. Only in this world do you pass on and then into eternal life. That's fine, but there's no excuse for acting like a stupid disingenuous prick at a funeral.

Around this time I used to go to the pub with a bunch of guys, one of which would include this girl from one of the churches I went to. Never drank alcohol, naturally, but she was connected to a couple of my mates so she came along to mingle and all the rest of it. I've always been an accepting person, regardless of who I've hung about with, so she was welcome to chill with the fellas. Except she had a propensity to cast judgement on the choices of others, particularly sexual choices. So if someone spoke about a relationship or a sexual encounter, out would come the ridiculous moral judgments about 'lack of respect' and empty souls etc.

But worst of all, and I really couldn't cope with this, was her habit of bringing up conversations about homosexuals and homosexuality, where she would say something like "I'm sorry, but gays are not normal, their acts are disgusting and against the word of God and they are going to hell".

This may have seemed normal amongst her mates, but down my local with the gang? Totally and utterly inappropriate and not in keeping with normal conversation whatsoever. Firstly, none of us were (openly at least) gay, and secondly ,why say it? Why make the point over and over. Alright, already, you think gays are toast. We don't and we don't really want that sort of shit spoken here. She never got the hint, instead backing up her sometimes politically tinged comments with stuff about 'love for the person, not the deed'. Well, if there's love for the person, why do you look like a bulldog swallowing a wasp whenever you obsessively raise the subject of gays and the Devil?

I've never had a good, positive, sincere encounter with a Christian. If they are not outright offensive and cunty, they are manipulative, sly and mealy mouthed, with awkward intentions. Religious people, based on my experiences, fall into two camps. Those that need the crutch for themselves, to provide meaning and validation. And those that need it to be a crutch for other people. The gullible, selfish salvation hunters, and the power hungry manipulators.

And I guess all this ties in quite nicely with the film 'W.' and phenomenas like Tony Blair. People in high up positions of power are enraptured by religion, because it is a tool of power over themselves and others.

Religion is the lubrication of lunacy. It is no co-incidence that most of the world's religious leaders and political figures are lunatics and complete bastards.

The Left Gun For The Police

The G20 protests are rumbling on with a third case being sent to the IPCC, one in particular stands out.

That case is, of course, Nicky Fisher. A 35 year old woman from Brighton who screamed and shouted then pushed a riot officer and received a slap and a stick in return. Ms Fisher then claimed she had been left like a victim of the Taliban, went to Max Clifford and became Nicola Fisher - poor set upon peace lover.

She now appears with a new Mum at home look and has finally decided to report the incident to the IPCC after two weeks. Hopefully the few grand she gets will allow her urgent work in an animal sanctuary to continue. As her boyfriend so beautifully put it

She might as well get some money from the papers, everyone else does.

Naturally.

The Left in general are gunning for the police though, as though the actions of the minority (two people by my count) somehow reflect the discussions at he very highest level, that must surely occur, about how best the police can beat up innocent people.

Last night there was even mention of the IPCC itself being accused of collusion.

This is an incredibly dangerous thing for the Left to get involved in. They are in no doubt that he police are a political force instructed by the powers that be to crush debate and protest; they are nothing of the sort. The police in this country are not perfect by a long way, but they do not beat up innocent protesters. The overwhelming majority during that day stood there and took the worst sorts of abuse and physical action, and took it with flinching. The actions of the protesters should be seen for exactly what they are: an attempt to get a reaction from the police.

The simple reality is that they didn't get it.

Ian Tomlinson did not deserve to die, nobody does, nor had he attacked anyone. The officer involved should be reprimanded. But no one seems to want to point out that this everyday guy who loved his footy down The Den was not 'on his way home', the most glancing of looks at the footage shows him consistently walking along the police line of a massive political protest that everyone else in the City was avoiding like the plague. And if the push, if, caused the internal bleeding then is was a tragic accident, there is obviously no intent. And there is no mention of the officers who desperately tried to save the guys life, presumably because they don't fit the caption.

Nicky Nicola is basically a nasty little bitch who goaded an officer relentlessly, then got a response. This was not a copper wading in fists flying, blood spurting all over the place. It was the snapping actions of a no doubt stupid policeman who should have kept his cool. I have little sympathy for him.

That's it. That's the nasty police beating up the public and certain elements on the Left are desperate to use it, in exactly the same way they did with Stephen Lawrence and other tragedies, to castrate the police in this country.

Quite what it is they want them replaced with stumps me to be honest, some gang of eunuch social workers in high visibility vests I suppose.

The Three Premierships Teams To Go Down

Just a quicky, but I will finally lump on ad say who is going to get relegated.

West Brom

Newcastle

...and....

Hull.

'Boro are on a mini run, although they have a tough, tough run. Blackburn have points in the bag and only really need one decent result in reality.

West Brom are gone. Newcastle are a difficult bunch, but I just cannot see them doing it. Although they could pip 'Boro to safety It's the later that are hitting a hint of form.

Hull, however, are down. They are now losing to the teams below them and haven't won since 4th March at Fulham and before that 6th December. Their form is awful, the team is all over the place and they are being hauled back week on week.

That Cunt Gordon Brown Can Fuck Right Off And Take His Merry Band Of Cunts With Him

And...back in the room.

Whilst being run around like Mr W.E. Coyote for the last week, some tasty little bites have been floating around have they not? Poor Kate Garraway gets ousted off the GMTV sofa by a younger, better looking 'insert job description' and then her hubby decides to create a website that I can only assume is to do with a ladies monthly bits and fucks the entire government.

Dear oh dear, what a going on there has been at GM.TV. The very heartland of New Labour, the very heartland of wannabee Express reading idiocy has been ripped apart and flushed down the toilet only to be replaced by an even more vacuous version. Shame.

However, this is all small chips 'n' bits compared the that fucking cunt Gordon Brown and his fucking shit hole of a sense of morality.

He just loves a bit of bullshit does Gordon. Now, did he himself stand there and watch his doppelganger write a crude attempt to smear the opposition (fuck sake, he might as well have copied it off the school toilet door 'Steph H takes it in the muff', 'Gaz T fucks dogs with Marmite') whilst smirking his evil smirk? Most probably not. But he did employ a guy who, as anyone and everyone in Westminster will say, is him and is as close to him as it is possible to be without Mrs Brown asking him to get out of the bed. Therefore, he is acting within the parameters set by his master.

This is lost in the minds of the GMTV viewers I witnessed this week. 'I'm not held to account for everyone I work with so he shouldn't be', 'He didn't know so he shouldn't say sorry'. Get a fucking grip you stupid fucking wankers. There is still, deep down in the pipework, a weird thinking that Brown is this good guy who goes to Kirk. Bullshit, the guy is a shit politician who has repeatedly been shown to run probably the most morally and financially corrupt government this country has ever had.

All this makes me fume all the way to the doctor's for a blood pressure test before putting the pads on myself and shocking me back to life. I fucking hate it. There is nothing worse that apathy caused by ignorance, it is the very definition of everything that is wrong in the West and everything that causes the Third World to suffer the boot of corruption.

Gordon Brown in one week, ONE WEEK, has suffered the exposure of a vicious, nasty smear campaign and the exposure of the sheer scale of bullshit of that led to an opposition MP to be arrested by over twenty officers and questioned for nine hours. That isn't to mention the quite incredible scale of expenses abuses in the last month or so.

And let's not forget the complete disaster of the economic policies that have caused the current recession. Let alone the policies that haven't done anything for it like VAT.

Or the farcical wishes for electric cars.

Or the reported tapping of pensions in the coming budget to help pay for it all.

The guy even said, in 'my irony of the week', "I take full responsibility and the person responsible has been removed..", so admits liability, says the person liable is sacked and he is still in a job! Fucking hell people what else has he got to do to be dumped on his arse!

It has now reached a point where a general election should be called right now, this week. A vote of no confidence should be called and he should be out of a job. And let's not forget, the Tories were half as bad as this in the 90s and the media literally took them apart, Labour limp on with the apologists at the BBC, the Guardian, the Mirror and shit holes like GMTV semi-burying the story.

Even the Mail has been gentle on the latest shambles and, I know it sounds conspiratorial, I refuse to believe that a favour hasn't been called in from Dacre, Brown's buddy in arms.

This country has descended into a joke. A joke the Labour hierarchy are desperate to paint as a political joke that all politicians must sort out. Fuck. Off. It is a Labour mess caused by Labour and it's corrupt, fucked up, deranged, power hungry, clinging on inner circle who has its claws in every media outlet.

And still people walk around excusing them because of their own moronic ignorance of events.

He has no idea what he is doing, he has shown a complete lack of leadership, he has no perception of events and his Home Secretary is now entering what can only be described as Bizarro-land. And no one does a thing. The wet blankets that got in as MPs under Blair are too scared about their careers to do anything and the Tories are being seriously mis-guided in their belief that they shouldn't wade in and piss all over the situation. The media are in the back pocket and it is now a sad state of affairs that blogs are the only people in this fucking country that are fighting.

The 17.36 Hand Cart, calling at Lucifer's Left Nut, Salford, Dante's Inferno and Hell, is now boarding.

Apologies for Slackage

Please accept our apologies for the current slackage of bloggage at the moment. We have both been rather, how do we say in Engerland...'busy'?

Not sure why I'm talking in a French accent in my head right now. Maybe it's reading all about Sarkozy's amusing comments about various world leaders. Don't know why he's getting stick about it. It's all quite true. Refreshing to see a politician not talk like a politician every now and then.

Liberation, the left wing toss bags, can stick their criticism up their stuck up French arses quite frankly.

Anyway, must dash. There shall be super overcompensation on the article front starting from this evening. So do tune in soon.

PS. Please note that we won't be jumping on the Guido/Paul Staines Vs. McBride bandwagon. You might see a brief article as to why, but we are both reluctant to grant this two bob mediocrity any more bloody air-time than he deserves. Which is in fact the sum total of fuck all, based on his boring, content free blog which only gets interesting once in a Haley's Comet visit due to some banal Westminster gossip fluttering his way.

Adios

The Right For Prisoners To Vote - The EU Misses The Point

The Government is planning to give prisoners who have a sentence of less than 4 years the right to vote, after the European Court of Human Rights concluded, in its infinite wisdom, in 2004 that banning them from voting was against the European Convention on Human Rights.

The LibDems want it and have called for it before, the Tories are against it.

The LibDems and the EU have completely missed the point of this rule. Between any state and citizen there exists a basic contract of law and order and fredom. There is also the equally important contract between citizens, that ancient, prehistoric contract: you don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you.

People who are in prison have fucked with everyone. The masses have decided that beating the shit out of someone, or killing someone, or robbing a house or shop are not acceptable. The rules are established, they are agreed by everyone and a state is created and elected to enforce these rules. The people who have broken them are well aware of the consequences.

So why should they vote? By breaking the rules against everyone else, to the physical, emotional and financial of harm of the victims and society as a whole, they have given up any right to select the state that enforces the rules they were so prepared to break. The punishment is clear, a custodial sentence, restriction of freedom and rights.

The patients do not choose who runs the asylum.

And why do we have this 2004 ruling? We have it because John Hirst accused the government of abusing its position. I would have to say that Mr Hirst abused his position when he violently murdered his Landlady and served 25 years for it.

For the period of the sentence the prisoner is removed from society, both for our protection and for their punishment. That punishment, although in prison, is effectively the removal of rights to participate in society for a set period. This is not an abuse of human rights, they are there because they abused everyone else's rights in the first place.

I would point out to the EU and the LibDems that John Hirst's victim has no human rights, no right to vote, or live, or enjoy life itself let alone freedom of speech or other fundamentals.

I am not a ranting right wing lock 'em up forever type. But for people in power to suggest that those who have so grievously infringed the basic rights of everyone in society should retain their owns rights because 'being in prison is punishment enough' is farcical. They have the right to not suffer cruel and unusual torture, they have the right to Habeas Corpus, they have the right to be fed and watered and allowed to clean.

They do not have the right to participate in any way, shape or form in the democratic process of the society they so willfully betrayed with their actions.

The Recovery Of The Global Markets Is Met With Silence

Being a strange, inquisitive, slightly abnormal chap who has spent Good Friday in a mixture of sleep and standby with a bit of light reading I had a bit of ponder time. But hey, TV guys, you are aware that it's school holidays and a bank holiday and that 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' doesn't really cut the mustard?

I digress.

What this state of oddness has led me to do is to look through the various stock market charts for the previous 12 months, because I had a hunch. That hunch took the form of a simple grain of an idea: Are the markets actually doing what we are being told they are doing?

On the news we are all being told about the recession, or as Gordon Brown likes to call it 'Global economic downturn caused by everyone else', and only a fool would argue otherwise. However, we are also being told about how the markets are all over the shop and shares are crashing. More specifically we are being told that people's pensions are screwed and that is why the average middle manager from Basingstoke was on the G20 march with all the nutters.

So I had a look. Now, to put this in context, let's all cast our minds back to the back end of 2008 when all the shares did go full blown tits up, banking shares, for some unknown reason, went completely arse about tit. This is not in dispute. Since then the markets have reacted poorly to various cock-ups in various government's fiscal and monetary ideas that have had a small, if at all, effect. Let's also remember the things all markets crave: stability and predictability.

So here we go, the big boy charts for the last 12 months and the BBC Global 30 as a barometer:

FTSE100

Dow Jones

Nikkei

BBC Global 30

So, are we all seeing the exact same trend since the turn of March? A few blips, a few tasty moments, but I think it's quite obvious that the markets are turning. Why? Well, first off there is the obvious situation that money can be made. Prices are low, they will always get higher and even if they were to get lower money will still be made long term.

There is also the issue of predictability. The economies are all screwed, they will be screwed for at least another year and we all know that. There is also a certain degree of stability: Obama is in the door and Brown is going nowhere till at least the Autumn, plus all the spending has been done.

Then there are the usual factors. Consumer sales in America are showing signs of a mild increase, some companies and banks are reporting profits. And as we all know, profits mean prizes. This is not too say that it's all lovely, of course it isn't, and the overall political-economic side is a mess. There are issues with manufacturing, housing (although this is the exact point where investors jump in) and inflation. But although some measures are still bad, they are less bad than forecast.

I am also not alone in this, after a bit of digging on the BBC, I found this article. The oil markets are not stupid and some form of optimism is clearly out there.

My concern is why this is not being openly displayed. Optimism and confidence are the very things that go out the window at the start of a recession, or can even make a slump into one, and their return is what is always needed.

People aren't going to go out and spend like crazy just because the 6 O'clock News tells them that a bit of oil has been traded and the markets are going up. But it would give people a sense of security to know that things are looking up in an it-could-be-worse way.

It would also give optimism about pensions. People are going into a blind panic about their pension, which is entirely understandable given the reality of Brown's destruction of the pension system in 1997 is dawning, but if the market's recover, the dent is less. Bad, but less. Although it is below the spike of January, the upward shift is sustained rather than a reaction and that can only be a good thing.

The overall economic picture for he next 12 months is not good, but it will be interesting to see at what level the markets average out at for that period before geting back to normal.

Harriet Harman Wades In Again

Harriet bloody Harman. I have to say, when she opens her stupid mouth I actually feel a bit sorry for the Labour Party, because it is usually to say something particularly retarded.

No she has done it again. It's like she goes into these interviews with nothing really in her head and just comes out with an endless stream of bollocks, this time it's the BNP and the European elections. She just had to talk about it to the Indie didn't she, she just had to bring it up.

"Most people are not aware the BNP is standing....It is below the radar. There is very low public awareness of these elections. For us, it is a question of pointing out the dangers of the BNP, which now wears suits but whose ideology is as pernicious as ever."

Not very far below the fucking radar now they are splashed all over every news source from here to the Moon are they you stupid bitch. And where does she give this warning of the BNP getting an MEP? The Independent. Well done, pick the paper that no one outside of Islington reads in order to warn the poor little racist cunts in Burnley about the dangers of a bunch of Neo-Nazis in suits.

I do like the reason that people fall for them because they wear suits. A bit like people fall for hard left champagne socialist equality obsessives I'd imagine. The main issue really though is that rather than attacking the BNP and it's nasty little policies, exposing it, she avoids the subject entirely. Therefore she she has simply put BNP all over the front page and said her party is rattled.

This is my favourite bit though, the sheer irony is fantastic:

However, Labour leaders have rejected calls from many of their own MPs to launch a full-frontal national attack on the BNP, fearing that would merely play into the party's hands by giving it "the oxygen of publicity"

Instead Harriet has decided that an exclusive interview with a national paper which is the websites current number one story that is then fed around the planet by the PA is the way forward. We wouldn't want the BNP to get the oxygen of publicity now would we H.

Then again, maybe she has picked the Indie for the reason that no fucker reads it.

Traffic Lights are authoritarian, Roundabouts are libertarian

I've been meaning to write this piece for bloody ages. Seeing as I have the day off tomorrow because the traditions in the country are linked to a religion which dictates that the son of god died and rose on the third day, I have the time and capacity to do more work on my blog.

My the Lord works in mysterious ways!

In my early days as a (former) contributor to Peter Hitchens's blog, I read a piece of his entitled "Why are trains left-wing, and cars conservative?" in which he counters this apparent popular 'logic', setting out his anti-car and pro train stall.

He has good points, though I disagree with various points of his on the matter. I don't think it's great that millions upon millions of cars clog the roads and I don't like the fact that so many people die as a result of vehicle accidents. I think the Beeching Report was a disaster for the country and it is a shame that we are so car dependent as a nation.

But we are in the hole we are (obviously because of state interference, as usual) and there is no obvious way out of mass car ownership, especially on Libertarian grounds. So the answers to the inherent problems lie elsewhere. I have mad, grand theories on all this but that's for another article.

The fact is, cars are here to stay, so are the roads, and so what I want to highlight is a small, Libertarian contribution to things which would make everyone's lives (particularly motorists') much better.

The roundabout.

You see, people. In my view, the debate isn't about left wing cars and right wing trains or vice versa. We should be looking at the authoritarian scourge that is the traffic light, and the freer and more fluid traffic solution that is the libertarian roundabout.

Just to patronise you, because that appears to be de rigeur in modern journalism, here's a picture of a roundabout in case you've never heard of one or seen one in your life.

This is a roundabout. Now let me get on with the fucking article.

Now, I'm assuming people have sufficient knowledge of roundabouts, and therefore are capable of seeing their benefits. If we cast aside for a moment the retard pussies that have a heart attack at the thought of one (no, really, you are special needs. Grow a pair), I think we can all agree with one main point about this function of road traffic on the highways:

Roundabouts allow the people to manage themselves.

This is of course a key, fundamental Libertarian tenet. Freedom to act on instinct and common sense, free of the interference of an outside, bossy and incompetent force (traffic lights).

When traffic is light, these work because they don't stop directions of traffic needlessly, because motorists can sort themselves out. When traffic is heavy, they still work, because the traffic simply feeds in and the system, like our bodily systems of breathing and digestion, just work.

Roundabouts produce consistent, fluid motion, whilst at the same time allowing heavier routes to gain dominance, thereby creating fair outcomes. Traffic lights are hardly ever as sophisticated, and they bossily dictate who has right of way.

Take the mini roundabout for instance. They are brilliant. If there are three exits and entrances, and at each junction feeding in, there is a vehicle waiting, poised to go, you will notice something. Sometimes, each driver will be sat there, much like a lemon, looking to their right to see if that person is going to make a move. Because all three drivers are doing this, for a brief moment, no-one will go.

What happens? You fucking know what happens. Eventually, someone will make a move. Roundabouts are great, because they allow the dominant, responsibility-taking driver to capitalise, and this exploitation by the dominant driver is helpful to the driver to his or her right, because it gives them a chance to go also, and so on. Everyone wins, but the one with the balls gets to go first.

This, for me, demonstrates the natural order of the world and is a perfect symbol of the free market which I embrace. roundabouts encourage independent thought, common sense and responsibility.

Traffic lights are the exact opposite. They are a very communist function to our cities, towns and villages. They may have been a good idea in 1911, when drivers had no license, very little fucking clue about what was going on, and all the horse and carts sort of fucked it all up.

Now, they remind me of China and the New Statesman. And that really pisses me off.

Speaking of the New Statesman, it doesn't surprise me one bit that on researching for this piece, I came up with this 2005 article from the Staggers in which the author roundly attacks cab drivers and the Tories for their denigration of traffic light systems in London. The author also puts in a shout out to Ken Livingstone, while he sticks the boot into the car lobby. For me, the fact the NS opposes motorists and supports traffic light systems is total proof that I am right about this entire argument. Anything they say, the opposite simply must be true because that communist / Fabian rag is an absolute screaming farce most of the time.

OK, back to patronise-mode. You ready?

Herr Pussy: "Oh look! It's green! I can go now. Thank you!"

Well, it sort of breaks up the writing a bit doesn't it? Makes the piece a bit more manageable and presentable. I think.

Yes, as I was saying. Traffic lights. What is the point? Why use these ahead of the roundabout? They are almost always a poor replacement. I hate them. I despise the authoritarian nature of them, and they remind me of this Labour government. "You will go how, when and where I tell you. Now sit there, shut up and do as you're told".

What. The. Fuck. People can't seriously tell me that traffic lights are a requirement. In fact, I could argue this for road markings and many other features of our roads which help people to switch off, be told what to think and do, and to basically resemble a bored team of robotic serfs.

There is in fact no evidence to show that road markings and traffic lights help the traffic or marshall congestion effectively and efficiently. A road pilot in London a few years back demonstrated that the road that was bereft of speed humps, markings and lights saw traffic move slower and more thoughtfully. Thus helping to prove my argument.

Of course, there are those countless occasions where it's quiet, no-one is about and you're stuck at a red. Or even worse, you're cruising along at a nice speed and then you have to pull up sharp because the lights decided that was enough. You had to stop and give way to a hedgehog or a fucking badger. Or fuck all, more often than not.

Then you're sat there thinking "If I run this now, will I get away with it?" as you furtively scan the area for cameras.

This is bullshit Big Brother wank. The symbol of the arrogant, pious, all knowing, all powerful state. Fuck it, fuck them, fuck everyone who supports this shit.

Three motherfucking cheers for the Libertarian Roundabout. The better alternative to the authoritarian traffic light.

Number of Fake Pound Coins Increases - Darling Denies Involvement

News spread today that the number of fake Pound coins in circulation has reached epidemic levels, with reports suggesting that one in twenty is a funny one.

One British Pahnd

The Mint are denying the entire situation and insist that all the money currently available is all very fine thank you very much. However, Bobby-John Williams, Spokesman for the Fake Money and General Forgery Union, offered a very different perspective this afternoon:


"Following the Bank of England Surplus our members had no choice but to increase supply to meet demand.


"Our machines are struggling to cope with overseas orders to be honest and the markets are lapping them up. The problem for us is, because of the crash in the value of the Pound, our members profit margins have taken a serious squeezing. Some are now trading at near 1:1 and many of the producers are thinking about jacking it all in and knocking out some other more worthwhile currency.


"Like the Mexican Peso."

Worth more than a Britsh Pahnd

Alistair Darling denied that the influx of fake money had anything to do with his decision to re-name the Bank of England 'Go' earlier this year and create vast sums of cash that didn't actually exist.

"The amount of funny money on the money market has nothing to do with the amount of funny money I released into the money market earlier this year. Money has always been funny and it is my pledge in this time of despair.

"I like my Summers sunny, my Easter bunny and my money funny honey."

What exactly do these 'Tamils' want us to do?

I've found this whole Tamil Tiger demo chaos in Westminster most bemusing. The BBC has reported on the third day of protest in Parliament Square. A protest that has seen conflict with the police and one person jumping in the Thames, causing all kinds of predictable overreaction from the authorities. Why the tosser wasn't left to swim back to shore is beyond me.

This is a confusing melodrama, precisely because unlike other conflicts where Britain is at least tenuously linked (the Palestinians can argue that Britain created the whole problem in the Middle East in their post war solution) I can't see what possible responsibility or ownership Britain has in what is playing out in Sri Lanka.

Ceylon came under British rule in 1815. It gained independence soon after the war, like many other countries under the Commonwealth, but there was no divide and rule situation. The problems with the Tamil separatists didn't really get started until the early 1980s. The long and the short of it is, the conflict over there, pretty much like many many many conflicts in the world, has fuck all to do with the UK.

So I fail to see why this country and the people who pay taxes into the coffers should spend good time, money and diplomatic resources into muddying their hands in a war between two factions thousands of miles away. To what end? For what purpose? Can the UK, even if it were so inclined, possibly offer a meaningful and viable solution to this crisis? Would London send envoys, or soldiers, and suddenly all is perfectly fine and the killing has stopped and the State has handed over control of the media to independent broadcasters?

No - we would be wasting our time.

I thought that after Iraq, people would be more sensitive towards things like UK involvement in the affairs of other countries?

I thought that after the economic collapse, partly down to excessive government spending and borrowing, people would realise that this besieged country of too high a population and too few wealth creators has little or no resources to spare to sort out the problems and plights of foreign nationals in exotic climbs?

I believe in the right to free speech and protest. The 'Tamil Tigers' and their supporters should be allowed to have their say and shout all they want.

But I, as a tax payer and a British citizen, also have the right to protest back at the protesters. Because, as ugly as it sounds, the conflict in Sri Lanka has nothing to do with us, it's not our responsibility or duty to get involved, we are not the world's policeman, we are not morally superior in what is right and wrong in international affairs, and if the Tamils (diaspora or passport holding nationals) don't like it, I think they should quite simply fuck off and fight the good fight with their partisan warriors in the Motherland.

Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it.

The Problem with the Daily Mail - part 1

The Daily Mail needs properly dissecting, because it has a huge readership and its politics in the current climate are interesting for various reasons. This is my part 1 of a series of articles on the Daily Hate and this part will discuss the role and relevance of the Daily Mail in leading right wing politics forward.

Readers of Boatang and Demetriou know that we speak plain English about most things, but our English becomes slightly coloured with bad language when we discuss the Mail because we hate it and all it stands for. Read the following equation:

Hate + Hate = Virtuosity and Positivity.

Because two negatives make a positive. We hate something that purveys hate, therefore we are, well, the combined forces of love and all that is majestic. Would you expect anything less?

Yet this is simplistic. Yes, we hate the Mail, yes we hate all it stands for. But I have to say this now - there is something very awkward about Mail politics and those of right leaning Libertarians such as myself.

That awkwardness comes about when I read something in the Mail and find myself vaguely agreeing with its position. This happens on occasion (not regularly) and when it does happen, I am somewhat caught in a painful trap. I agree with my enemy.

Let me elaborate.

Libertarians dislike government interference and we distrust and dislike the 'Big State' and what a big state means for people. We have a natural distrust for politicians and Libertarians of my ilk (and those of other Libertarian bloggers like Devils Kitchen) are extremely anti the Labour Party and the Labour government and we're mighty pissed off about the expenses claims fiasco, corruption, greed and liberal left hypocrisy.

So when I read articles like this in the Mail. And this one too, it's often hard to disagree.

Sometimes the Mail will make a negative comment about the EU, and link our membership with reasons for why things go wrong and why the dwindling of our national sovereignty is at the heart of serious problems. Sometimes I will disagree, but again, sometimes I'll think "well, you're right there".

Does this make me a 'Mail Reader' or supporter of Mail politics? The answer is no.

My politics can overlap with Mail politics when it comes to cynicism of government and a dislike for the left. But our 'launch pads' or base points, however you want to call it, are very different.

The Mail comes from the old school, authoritarian, so called 'conservative' (blurred between that and fascist) right wing. When it attacks (and it's main thrust is to attack and berate) its enemies, it conceals what it actual seeks out. The Mail and its readers probably forget what they seek out, amidst their haze of hate and blind contempt for anything they don't understand or dislike in a reactionary knee jerk sense. Though I could probably have a stab at it.

The Mail wants a strong state, but in a format of its own liking and moulding. Something that I, as a Libertarian, think is a contradiction in terms and something that is impossible to achieve.

The political zeitgeist is changing. Yet the Mail isn't the sole voice of the Right. Libertarians can tilt the scales the other way, without us going down into a Daily Mail 'conservative' paradigm.

They hate the State (good, I agree) but they want to replace it with, not a free market or a system where individuals have more autonomy, but with a state that is infused with Edmund Burkian conservative values and a strong hand over 'social policy'. In other words, they want to rid us of an authoritarian left wing state which we have now and replace it with its opposite number on that wing of the political spectrum.

My politics runs completely contrary to that. Which is why I get so angry when I read the sexist, racist and homophobic articles in that paper and it's why I get so annoyed at the Mail's moral high horse and how it and its readers think they are so much better than those lower down the social spectrum and also those that are higher and have done better than they.

The Mail actually opposes freedom when you look at it. The bulwark of their support, politically and as buyers of the paper, comes from staid, boring, gutless, narrow minded suburbs and out of town commuter belts. They despise diversity, immediately hate foreigners and have odd tendencies towards theories of race and sex that many open minded and reasonable people would question.

This is all important to highlight, because while I may seem to agree with the Mail on something, we actually part ways when it comes to the crunch. The crunch is of course the question of 'yes we don't want this, but what do we want?'.

But the most crucial point of this piece is this: The Mail only appeals to a certain percentage of people and their scope for influence and their ability to change the psyche of this country is limited. For all the inane rantings of its readers on its comments pages below articles, and for all the booming and bellowing of its biased, angry articles, the Mail can't win over enough people to make significant and needed changes. Because millions of people, particularly the younger and ever more educated people out there, link the Mail (and rightly) with dumb, stupid, annoying, parental, right wing, daft, fucked up politics and silly stories about botox and wobbly bottoms.

So for Libertarians (very much the force in ascendance) on the right and even the left that are are capable of challenging the 5 decade old socialist / liberal-left orthodoxy, it is vital that we distance ourselves or at least openly make distinctions between us and the Mail and its readership.

We must not become tainted. To do so would delegitimise our Libertarian goals. To do so would very quickly end our ascendance.

Like a grim game of bingo at some dowdy hall in a broken former mining town sometime around midnight, the number is nearly up for the Mail. As its readership gets older and dies out, and as its influence eventually wanes, to ally with the Mail would be to ally with a sinking ship. It's circulation remains strong and is indeed growing, but this is because it is pulling out all the stops to maintain female readers through gossip tat and 'Heat' mag style news.

And of course, as I said before, sometimes the Mail has it right and many people out there will probably think the Mail speaks for them...when in actual fact it doesn't.

The thing is this: there is no newspaper out there that covers the massive gap in the market of an anti-government, anti-left, yet anti-authoritarian and pro-freedom and diversity position.

This is why blogs like this and others are booming. It's all about Libertarian blogs like this taking the gauntlet and running with it.

So keep reading our site and other sites like this and you'll be on the right track. And join the LPUK (Libertarian Party UK). This is the only party out there that has the right approach to politics and society.