'How Racist Are You?'

For anyone who watched that Channel 4 documentary late last night called 'How Racist Are you?', you might be forgiven for being a little confused after the documentary ended.

The basic theme of the show was to study a sample of people from different backgrounds. The mediator / person running the show was a bizarre little old white lady named Jane Elliot, who assumed the role of the deranged evil bitch determined to make blue eyed people feel like shit and brown eyed people more superior.

In other words, she played the role of Grade A Shit Stirrer Extraordinaire and the idea was the rile up the minorities and brown eyed folk against the white people with blue eyes. Except...Madam Whiplash genuinely believes in a basic premise throughout her job here: that all white people are racist, and that they possess an inherent, from birth, predilection towards seeing themselves as superior and black people inferior.

In short - how fucked up is that?

The acrimony between the two 'camps' that were deliberately segregated was interestingly low key. A few snaps and a few objections, but most people kept their cards close to their chests. Which was, according to analysis, typically British. It wasn't like that in American, Australian or South African groups. They were more angry and adversarial. Which you can well imagine.

But, the sentiments were there for all to see: the blue eyed group refused to accept that they were inherently cunty towards minorities, and most of them thought that racism is a two way street that can affect anyone of all races.

The black and Asian people, or at least some of them, thought otherwise. Elliot just stood there whipping up hatred against the whites by calling them ignorant and stubborn.

In other words: 'I think 'x', you don't agree, I am right, therefore you are wrong and a cunt. QED motherfucker'.

Given that she possessed not the slightest objective proof of her insane and offensive logic and assertion, I believe the woman to be a bumptious fuckwit of the highest order.

My view is this: let's deal in proof. There is no proof that all whites are racist. There is no real concrete agreement in society on what is a purely white or black race. I am half Greek, with relatives that not long ago lived in what used to be called Asia Minor. So, er, what the fuck am I? White, but not proper white, right?

My missus: Slavic. With ancestral links to Ghengis Khan. So what there?

At the end of the day, people love to cubby hole people according to what suits their agenda. And that goes for all people regardless of colour. We use these race cards to become martyrs, to manipulate people, to gain power.

Mail readers do it (I am a persecuted member of the silent majority and I can't say anything in our immigration ridden PC country! etc...)

Black people do it (I queued for ages and he looked at me funny, therefore he is racist, except what I didn't realise was that the service is generally just shit for everyone).

Sometimes, whoever perceives racism is actually depicting reality. Someone is being a racist cunt. I'm not stupid, I know it exists.

But is it really just a one-way paradigm, that can only affect non whites? You could argue it using circumstantial evidence and other weak logic, but there's no evidence that would pass the Karl Popper scientific tests of objective proof. It's one opinion Vs. A.N.Other opinion.

Get the fuck over it you pious sanctimonious motherfucking cocktards.

I'm sick and tired of people getting on telly and asserting opinion as though fact, whereby they are undeniably and unassailably correct and where all others are axiomatically wrong. Fuck off! This Elliott was a fucking nut bag, and I am amazed that C4 commissioned such a weird, fucked up programme. Oh, wait, hang on...no. I'm not surprised at all. I just lied.

Lee Jasper: Living proof that, in actual fact, racism isn't a 'white only' phenomenon

How about, we see it from this perspective. That darker skinned minorities are more likely to experience racial discrimination than white people, but that 'white people' is a broad term that encompasses different races and nationalities who are likely to also experience discrimination but because society says they are part of the majority their experiences and views are forgotten?

How about, we see it from yet another perspective. That darker skinned people experience more discrimination, but because employment law and discrimination laws have been skewed in their favour to counter the inequalities, the result is that white British people have been dealt with unfairly and suffer adversely in a system that shoves notions of meritocracy down the shitter?

How about perspective number fucking three? Namely that darker skinned people most likely do experience more discrimination, but that by this being the case, it does not follow logically that other peoples experience no discrimination.

The 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' logic of these 'all whites are racist' types is hilarious. They must have gone to Non Sequitir school.

It all reminds me of the furor that occurred when Joseph Harker, a Guardian writer, wrote a piece called 'Of course all white people are racist'. He still dredges up his weird ideas on race every now and then, which is music to the ears of Guardian print readers, though less so for online CIF contributors.

People like Harker have one ambition in mind: to firmly entrench into the popular consciousness that when it comes to prejudice, the people who own that facet to human existence are whites. White people possess it and lord it, in the same way as a Mail reader flaunts his new pair of secateurs from Home Base. Lovingly unwrapped, and put into clipping action as soon as the Jones' are out watering the dahlias.

They point to things that happen in the past, and as soon as there's a voice that says 'the past is past, let's move on', out comes examples of how it is happening now. As though nothing has improved. As though white people can't improve or become better.

There is a reason for this. It comes down to the same reason why anyone pushes an agenda in politics - power.

That's all it is. It's as simple as that. People make illogical statements and push dogmatic, uncompromising, unthinking lines because they want to suppress others for the benefit of their favoured lobby or group.

It is insane and utter fatuous to suggest that one race of people is inherently filled with a superiority complex, and that ingrained prejudice is something that only needs a bit of a poke to bring to the fore. One would have better luck arguing that all humans have inate prejudice. Though the evidential foundation for that claim is still not there. But 'white's' only? Bollocks.

I am not being arrogant or pious when I say that I do not look at black people and think negative thoughts. I treat them, automatically, the same. I do not judge based on colour. I believe there are huge numbers like me.

Maybe, because I am from a European region of the world, and I have values that are commonly found on this continent, I am more likely to notice and draw conclusions from the ways other people do things. This is surely normal from all sides.

My Greek relatives slag off 'the English' for being cold, austere, reserved, uncaring and non-committal. Not to mention dry and boring and lacklustre. I've met many English people who call Greeks (and this has included me personally on occasion) as 'slimy', 'sleazy', 'dirty' and other names, not to mention lazy and untrustworthy. Have a look at the two sides, and prejudice and stupidity is there...on both sides. Not one, both.

I bet it's no different for blacks or Asians. I bet they take the piss out of honky, in the same way as Mr and Mrs Garnett rip old rubber lips and Mr Curry Cunt. In fact, I went to an inner city London school and I fucking KNOW FOR A FACT that black people spend social time taking the utter piss out of whites. They saw me as a minority and didn't mind me listening in. I didn't really care either way, because it's not in me to really give a fuck about what people say.

Look at what I say on this site. I'm not in a position to lecture others on inappropriate conversation.

My conclusion is thus: we, humans, are all equally as cunty as each other.

Now just shut the fuck up and get on with life.

Lawro Prediction Table Week 26th October 2009

Lawro is currently excelling himself with his predictions and, after a wee brek, the record of the oracle is back up.

Until the last batch of games at the weekend he actually had Everton top, which is surprising to say the least. Yes, comapred to the real table Lawro is really on fine form this season and who knows, Chelsea or Man Utd might even lose a game at some point.

Morning Rat Fans

I had to laugh at the CWU this morning on BBC Breakfast. It is fast descending into 'I'm All Right Jack' with their convoluted language and endless strikes.

This morning good old Susy Reid asked the remarkably simple question of 'You have said talks have broken down over a sticking point. What is that sticking point?'. Dave Ward's response was possibly the classic of the whole sorry episode: Sorry, I couldn't here some of that a bus went past.

The CWU are now doing what all militant unions always do, push their luck. No matter what legitimate points they may have the public are now getting very tired of all this and just want it sorted. The major reasons for this are basically that the Union refuses to say what it is actually striking about and what the sticking points are. Just answer the question!

"Sorry Susanna, the negotiations are confidential and are confidential negotiations. Our workers will not bow down to these confidential demands, which we are confidentially negotiating, because our workers have no fucking idea what they are. But worry not, their union representatives will make sure that the negotiations remain fully confidential.

"The main issues are not the sticking points, but they remain unresolved. We sent Royal Mail a 4000 page report on the major confidential issues that we feel our members should be promised and after 8 hours they still hadn't answered.

"Big Martin had to go home in the end because it was getting dark and his wife was getting upset. I can neither confirm nor deny whether the issues resulting from Big Martin's wife getting upset are a sticking point."

----

Tony McFucknut has been ordered to repay £13,837 and, careful now, apologise to the House. I think I can safely speak for all when I say that this is a jolly harsh punishment and the public will be completely satisfied.

Imagine that, having to actually get up in front of all those people and admit that you are a lying piece of shit that defrauded the British people of vast sums of money in order to pay for your parents house, but that you are only paying back 14 large because some wanker has decided that somehow that is all you owe. He must be shitting himself. Or is that pissing himself laughing?

I mean, really when you think about there is no reason why the man shouldn't have a second home in his constituency that is all of 11 miles from where he lives and where both homes are within earshot of Parliament. It's perfectly reasonable to be that much of a crooked bastard.

----

I had to laugh at this in the Mail today. A Mother in labour basically said she wanted all the darkies out of the room and a member of staff has lodged a complaint.

There is obviously a lot more to it and of course the woman has the right to have who she wants at that moment. But to my mind the only thing that matters is that the staff know what they are doing and not wanting any non-white people in the room really should have been pretty fucking far from the thought process!

Most women want the thing out as quickly and pain free as possible, and if that means it being delivered by someone of a different colour, the bus driver or Marvin the fucking Martian then so be it. The fact that this woman's racism kicked in at this moment in time is quite amazing.

To the Mail readers of course, this is all perfectly normal. Why wouldn't this be your prime concern at that precise moment? Patient rights innit, which like being 'anti-PC' allows you to be as racist and hate filled as possible.

The Fucking EU

This week seems to be a very weird one in terms of the sovereignty of this nation. I don't mean that lots of legislation has suddenly happened, but that a sudden increase in europhilic language and reporting.

I'll kick off with the minor and work my way up.

First off are these stupid twats who managed to get themselves kidnapped by pirates, only for their stiff upper lip family to declare that it's all just jolly unlucky. The story was reported and the Navy was interviewed about the protection of the waters of East Africa. Note the use of 'the Navy', as opposed to Royal Navy if you would be so kind.

Because the Cap'n interviewed was British. The ship was British. The Navy was European. Yes, the 'Task Force' in operation is the EU Navy, because obviously NATO or the UN or, heaven forbid, individual nations couldn't possibly patrol these waters. No, it needs an EU Navy to paddle about. A navy that has the wonderfully neutral title of a task force, which is simply a politically loaded bunch of bollocks because people won't like being told that the EU now has a navy.

Why the fucking hell does the EU need a navy, task force or otherwise? What possible aims can it have that other bodies cannot already provide?

And the reporting was quite simply a matter of fact, by-your-leave EU Navy statement. Like it's been around since forever and was formed when Adam hit puberty.

Secondly we have a lovely bit of reporting on the BBC about Northern Rock. The Rock was obviously saved by the UK in order to stop total meltdown, a meltdown nicely caused by Robert 'Yes, I Am, A, Cock. Huw' Peston and the BBC, with some help from the tabloids which cause the reliable Brits to stamepede in blind raging panic.

The bank has paid back a huge amount to the taxpayer and is now to be split up into toxic and non-toxic. Vince 'People seem to believe that I know what the fuck I'm talking about' Cable thinks this is a bad idea, but that's another story. The fact is that to get the bank viable again and to create competition, it will be spilt up.

Because the EU has said it can be.

Yes, the EU has declared that the breaking up of Northern Rock is a swell idea and they support it. Well bloody hell drinks all round eh chaps! Thank fuck for that, I thought our own government were going to have to make a decision in the interests of the UK economy without anyone else telling them what to do.

It's a joke. But sadly it is a sign of the state of affairs we now have to deal with because of decades of spineless self-serving bastards. Let's not kid ourselves here, this all started with that total wanker Heath and his loaded referendum. Forty years later and we have most of Europe with a single currency, a European Bank, the European Supreme Court, The Lisbon Treaty, EU Armed Forces and a fucking...

...President.

Tony 'Bomb 'em all Mummy' Blair. What a total shit. It's like he is actually going all out for the century's biggest shit award come 2099 (don't worry, he'll still be here, head in a jar).

Gordon Brown is actually pushing for Blair to be the first President of Europe, a nasty little title that of course has no power whatsoever. Which is why they didn't just call it 'Chairman', or 'Leader of the EU Parliament'. No, President is a much better term, doesn't carry any form of hint about the future role of a federal state. No sir.

Print this out and put it on your wall, you better start getting used to it.

If Blair is made 'President', it sends a clear signal about the power and size of this role. It will be heavyweight, it will be international. Make no mistake about what the EU are doing here and where it is going.

Brown may very well think that he is being oh so bloody clever and getting Blair in to give Dave a kicking come 2010, or he may even think that by publicly backing someone he believes will not get the job he will look positive. He may even think that by having a Brit in the top job will give us some clout.

But that is because the man is a deluded moron.

Blair wants this job and has quite obviously been touting around for it. He wants it because he wants power, because he wants the motorcade, he wants his precious fucking legacy. That's all this man has ever wanted, all he has ever strived for.

These three things have come together in the space of all of four days. It's all just accepted, like it's a natural thing and the people are perfectly happy with it. Why wouldn't the EU have a navy? Why wouldn't the EU have the final say on our economy? Why wouldn't the EU have a President Blair?

I am not anti-EU in the broadest sense. I think a Union of geographically linked states in an economic, free trade manner is a good thing. I think having a series of common policies that ease freedom of movement and allow easier action to be taken on key areas is fine. But that does not mean a federal state, with an army, navy, currency, parliament, court, President. A state that controls rather than facilitates.

Silivio Berlusconi has said "We cannot imagine a divided Europe. We must find a consensus" on the subject of the Presidency. Why can't it be divided? Why must a consensus be found?

This is the entire problem. The people reject the constitution, but rather than hold their hands up and realise that people simply don't want a federal superstate, they go off and jiggle it about a bit. The EU is incapable of hearing 'No', only forever forward, forever towards the objective. Just listening and turning it all back to how people actually want it is beyond them. It's a merry band of ideological robots.

For instance, if Dave did just turn around and say 'No', what would they do? Would they seriously kick us out? Of course they wouldn't. It is all that is needed, the eurosceptic leaders of Europe to just say 'No' and mean it.

Brown could call a referendum and get a vast 'No' vote which would allow him to stand up and say 'Sorry lads, the people just won't go for it anymore, my hands are tied', but he won't. He won't, and they won't, because they are weak.

It is 40 years of weakness on Europe that have put us in the totally fucked position we now find ourselves. in.

In debt on your card? Guess what, not your fault.

The bashing of the banks continues with a relentless thirst for a scape goat. A scape goat that at no point can be either one, the government, or two ,the individual. That is very important.

The latest is credit cards. Now, I have a credit card and I'm pretty sure you will have too. When I got my credit card I was fully aware that it is an evil little piece of alluring plastic and also that the short term debt incurred would be beneficial only if paid off. To deduce this I used my brain.

I fully understand that some people are not aware of where this is, or maybe what it is. No matter, Boatang is here to help you out (Fig.1).

Fig.1 - The Brain. AKA your thinking box. Give it a whirl.

Contrary to the current government propaganda, debt is a good thing. Debt allows the world to spin around all fancy like, it allows man A to pay man B by borrowing from man C before in turn being paid by man D. Simples. It also allows me to buy a required, say, oven, or car, or other large household purchase that it simply wouldn't be feasible to save for. Debt is literally what turned us from nomadic cattle farmers to unlockers of the atom.

On a far smaller scale of course is the humble credit card. It's user applies to a bank, who more likely than not will issue them a little bit of plastic that holds a balance that can be exchanged for goods and services. In return the bank will charge an interest rate, although usually not for a good few months. Each month a direct debit will take an agreed minimum amount from the user's current account.

This is all very simple to understand. Of course, some people make the mistake of running up large debts they cannot possibly afford and end up in all kinds of problems, but like any contract, the terms and conditions were fully explained at the start. But wait! Terms and conditions? Yes dickwad, the page of words they make you read.

The proposals the at are being put forward are not wrong per se. They are sensible and would tighten how banks operate in the credit card market. But the problem is the reasoning behind it. That reasoning being people are so stupid that when they get a credit card they go mental and the banks know this. Therefore it is not the individual who is at fault, but the bank. Like this quote from Citizen's Advice:

In particular we see far too many people on low incomes who have drifted into very high levels of borrowing as a result of unsolicited increased access to credit

Ah! You see, the bank has phoned up and said 'Yeah, we've raised your credit limit from £3,000 to £4,000' and poor people go 'Whoopee!!', and run straight down to TK Maxx or KFC or something. Although it can easily be argued that the bank shouldn't have offered the moron the cash in the first place, it can also be easily argued that said moron's first reaction shouldn't have been to go and spend it if they couldn't afford what they owe already.

There is a large scale use of the current recession and credit crunch to excuse individual responsibility. Nothing is ever the individuals fault. You bought a house for way over the odds and then spent a fortune improving it for no real increase in value and now find yourself in shit loads of negative equity? Banks fault.

The financial education of the British people is appalling and as a get out clause banks are blamed. I actually had to explain to someone the other day that the cash in their current account is not in a box marked 'Dave's Current Account' and that it was clumped together with all the other accounts and invested. This ignorance allows all sorts of people to argue all sorts of absurd things, even the LPUK thinks fractional banking is some sort of aberration that should be destroyed as opposed to one of the underlying principles of the global economy.

And all this allows the individual to plead ignorance. If someone is up to their eyeballs in debt it is never their fault. I'm sure there are actually many people that are in real problems and need cards to actually get through life, and my heart goes out to them. But there are many, many others that earn a pittance because they stopped listening at 12, but want the lifestyle of someone earning three times as much.

The answer is just as much about financial education as it is about regulation. Because what we have at the moment is a nation of children. They want the large telly and the car and the holidays and the nights out, but they don't want to work to get them, nor do they understand that they have to. They want it now, now, now and they want it all given to them.

When it all goes wrong they look up with a guilty eye, point to the guy in the pinstripe suit and say 'He made me do it'.

The State of Britain: and while I'm on the subject...

One of the amazing things about the north is its architecture. It features a strange yet compelling mix of the classical, the Gothic, the Tuscan, the grungy, grimy industrial, the new brick, old brick, new stone, post modern, Brutalist and the rustic.

I am told that before the 60s, the buildings were vastly more beautiful, but under Harold Wilson, a good deal of old, quality housing stock was torn down and replaced by nasty communist housing estates and tower blocks.

These days, it's not hard to spot areas that used to be quite something, but are now troubled shit holes. A town just down the road from me has been devastated by just such developments. Socialist housing projects, welfarism and the state-sponsored programs that force people into destructive lives of dependency and degeneracy.

The sad thing is, there's no reason for it. But decay and gradual decline has forced decent people out to the villages (like mine) leaving a rump of indolent losers in its place.

Take my local Tescos for example. Nestled in a valley, beneath tower blocks and lovely big middle class houses, this supermarket lays host to the Balsamic and Stilton crowd, and the Tesco value nappies and multi-bags of crisps mob.

The other day, I was in the aisle that does CDs and books, having a flick through, when I turned to my right and witnessed something of quite shocking horror. A woman wearing a pink dressing gown, displaying her unshapely legs and nauseating blimpish body, was stood there with a trolley talking to a woman who obviously knew her.

The conversation between them ended, and the other lady looked on in disgust as her acquaintance waddled down the aisle with her trolley, seemingly oblivious to the fact that she wasn't fucking dressed to go out.

She didn't even have shoes on. Just some brown slippers, with red blemishes on her feet and legs. Hair, lank and dirty. Face puffy and unwashed.

I couldn't believe my eyes. This was a new level in degeneracy - the people who not only don't dress in the morning, who not only never look for work, but who don't even know what is acceptable in wider society on a base, basic, lowest common denominator level.

And I am paying tax into a social security budget that last year was £168 billion (this year projected to be £200 billion) so that my income tax along with all the rest of it plus more is pumped into keeping a huge section of society fed, watered and pampered.

It's OK, she can have it because she's packed in the smokes. Good girl!

There is an opportunity-cost attached to State decisions like this. The state takes my money, and decides to spend it on others. My choices are limited, as I have less money to draw on to do things I need or want to do. All the while, Madam Dressing Gown has an increased level of opportunity, at my expense, but contrary to the hopes of the left, they never, ever use the money to improve their lot.

Because life isn't fucking like that. If people don't earn their money, if they don't come by it in a proper decent manner, then their values and their incentives are warped.

Why should the woman from the estate get dressed to go out? Does she care if people like me pass judgement? So what if she has 'x' kids, who commit crime and ruin lives. So what if she drains society dry and hurts others and debases her community? What are the consequences? There are none. Because no matter what, the state is there to pick up the tab and underwrite her existence.

A couple of weekends ago, I was in a department store of a crap town not too far from where I live. A fracas was ongoing when I entered the store between a black woman and an Asian member of staff. The customer refused to leave, and in the midst of a row, hurled the worst forms of abuse in the loudest voice towards the poor bloke, including racist names and 'cunt' and all the rest of it.

She had no compunction in behaving like that, and not the least inhibition on the language she chose to employ. Again, I ask you, why should she regulate it? She, and other underclass scum like that, have absolutely no reason to behave in a civilised way. Society has given up. It's almost 'Tory' and bigoted to judge people and infer shame on others.

Instead we are to eat it up and shut up. Just like the left wingers want us to, particularly proud working class and middle class people. Secretly, the 'soixante huiters' hate people like me and take the side of the vulgar and offensive.

The justice system literally laughs at those who expect the law to step in to regulate and punish public displays of violence and aggression. If the black woman were white, it would be a different matter. The racist words alone are enough to justify several squad cars and the intervention of a Chief Superintendent. That she was (unusually and weirdly) black probably canceled out the urgency.

No police came, but the woman left the store because they were called. It was an awful scene.

Then there was today.

I began queuing up at my local convenience store to get some munch, when I smelt a nauseating stench of stale, malodorous booze. You know that smell. It sticks to scummy people who have spent hours and hours boozing. To the extent that the alcohol is seeping out of their pores and into their unwashed clothing. I pinned the blame on the bloke in front. A loping fellow of some height with lank, long hair and a check shirt that looked like it hadn't been cleaned since the last bit of work was completed on Hadrian's Wall.

There is no society anymore. Everyone stays in to watch shite TV and get pissed. Lovely stuff.

Then, if that wasn't unsettling enough, I detected something far, far worse. Something that made me heave and want to run home and hide. Preferably in a bath of Dettol. I am not making this up - the bloke in front of Booze Meister had the most spectacularly huge and horrific carbuncle on the back of his neck that I have ever seen. It was fucking massive. And it was at a head at two points, and I couldn't stop looking at it. No matter how hard I tried.

And what's worse, the queue wasn't going down. So I battled my my eyes for a good 5 minutes or so, trying and failing to avoid looking at this purple, large tomato sized beaut on this guy's pock marked neck. He wasn't that young; probably 30s. And he was dressed OK, and with designer glasses and shoes. He obviously didn't seem to mind that, because of his horrific personal hygiene, or inability to convey himself to a doctor's surgery or hospital, his day to day routine involved pootling around town with the skin of a medieval serf.

I spoke to Dame D about it for a while after, trying to figure out why people, en masse, have such desperately low standards of personal appearance and hygiene. Why there are so many Orc like obese people around, when there's no excuse for it.

Don't we have huge levels of awareness over healthy eating now and don't we have huge ranges of healthy food in the shops?

Why do people look and smell like shit, when for the last hundred years we have developed personal hygiene and cleaning products to first rate standards. Where soap is as cheap as chips and you can get even good named products in bargain shops for a quid or less.

Why can't people walk properly. Why do they lope and flip flop and plod, with their backs hunched over and their shoulders all slopey? Why can't blokes walk upright, and not like neanderthals? Why can't women carry themselves properly and why do so many of them feel the need to stare aggressively at everyone in little fits of paranoia and insecurity?

I guess it all comes back to the same reasoning I talked about earlier. Thanks to decades of post war socialism, we have reached a point where, logically, all semblances of civilised norms and behaviours have been bred out through the generations. There is no incentive to act and be good. Why the fuck should they do anything that might improve their lot?

Isn't that the job of the state?

Labour have done a great job of taking a bigger share of the pie of responsibility away from people since 1997, but let's not fool ourselves and say this started with Blair. Bullshit. This was set in motion well before then. Before Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, even Heath.

The moment the governing classes decided that the political consensus should feature strong strands of welfarism and Fabian social democracy, we were fucked. From that moment on, it was only a matter of time before subsequent generations degenerated into a joke.

What is terrifying about all this is the sheer numbers of people it involves. Like a zombie invasion in its advance stages, it seems to affect so many people. Those who work are better, but even then, standards are perilously low. It seems most people are just shite. How awful that I have come to a point where I call my fellow man such things. But I am compelled to say it, because it is simply what I see in front of me when I go outside my house.

I need to get out of this God forsaken country

What has it come to, when you can't even go out for a decent, civilised night out with the other half anymore? I live in the sticks, so on those rare occasions when I can get enough money together after my post tax-raped earnings have been totted up, I like to take Dame Demetriou out for a nice time.

Our options are limited, but last night I decided to go out on a limb. I researched to death the best restaurants and bars in Leeds, and lined up a fancy Japanese restaurant followed by a promising looking Cuban bar.

The night evolved somewhat differently to what I envisaged. Naturally, I took into account it was Leeds and it was a Saturday night, but Jesus fucking Christ, is this what it has come to now in our English cities? Is this seriously what passes for an acceptable carry on? If so, I feel desperately depressed, because we are all fucked.

First off, there were no decent people about. This may sound like a ludicrous, nebulous and pompous statement, but it isn't. I have an excellent nose for people and those who surround me in any given situation and Leeds city centre last night was jam packed full of utter fucking low life scum.

As we made our way up to the restaurant, we walked past mobs of inebriated losers, of both genders, who were unable to walk or talk properly. The blokes were dressed like shit. Baggy saggy jeans, beer bellies, scruffy hair and a general unkempt demeanor. The women, in their attempts to dress provocatively, failed even in that task. Which, given the concept of less being more, shouldn't be that fucking hard.

But no, as we walked past the 'Chippendale'esque male strippers bar, I saw what would be a theme for the evening. Nasty ho-bags with everything yet nothing on show. Horrid specimens of drunken oafishness. It was like I was Daniel fucking Defoe walking round some London slum with a note pad and a headache. All I needed was a dead baby on my boot and a smashed bottle of gin underneath it and the picture was complete.

It's 2009, and these State-addict underclass scum bags still think 'Cowboy' hats are hilariously cool on a night out with the 'girls'.

Hogarth will be turning in his grave, wondering about all those grimy, vile scenes he could have painted, but didn't because he was born in the wrong century.

So I ushered Dame Demetriou past the scenes of human wreckage. Teams of people lacking in the remotest scintilla of social mores or awareness. People clearly bereft of upbringing or the social pressures that make people develop things like 'manners' and civilised norms.

The streets were covered in windswept rubbish. Cartons and packets of every form of junk food imaginable, along with sheets of newspaper and aluminum cans rolling in and out of gutters. The smell of urine punctuated the occasional scent of cheap pastry goods and McDonalds that wafted out of doorways, luring passers by like the Vegas lights (the busiest eateries at half 8 on a Saturday evening in Leeds are Greggs bakers and the Golden Arches).

I glanced up at the sky and besides the flecks of rain, I spotted CCTC cameras on mounted poles and fixed units protruding from the lofty realms of department store buildings. I know these cameras well. I have seen endless footage from these cameras over the years, and I know that each and every nook and cranny of Leeds is filmed and watched by a team of Leeds City Council workers. They follow whoever they want to follow, for whatever reason. I'll stop there. I have to. But the truth is grim.

I felt like Winston Smith minus the Victory cigs.

Leeds is a grim, northern-English, authoritarian, low grade vacuous shit hole devoid of decent people.

Once at the restaurant, we thought civilisation might begin. Yet again, disappointment was to prove the continual theme of the night. This highly rated restaurant clearly had no regard or respect for the paying punters. I can only conclude that this is because they can get away with providing shite to people on account of Leeds being what it is, for who it is for.

The first thing I noticed was that the place stank of that smell pubs have when the staff have just washed the floors of fresh vomit. I know that smell, I recall it from my University days. So, lovely stuff there. I watched in horror as the barman created Dame Demetriou's mohito. He took a glass, placed a little alcohol at the bottom of the glass, shoved in some mint, took a pack of ice shards, crammed it on top, pushed it down with his hand and jammed a straw through the thing and handed it over.

If we weren't in such good spirits, I'd have sent it back.

We were shown to our seats. I call them seats, though that would be a flattering description. Dame D used a chair while I sat on the world's filthiest, ominously stained banquette. The floor (I had plenty of time to check my surroundings out, as we weren't tended to by the waitress for a good 15 minutes) was grimy and the curtains and decor seemed drab and uninspiring.

The food was appalling. Bland, boring, and hideously expensive (we walked away hungry and didn't get much change out of a ton). We left the place and entered the streets of doom once more. This time there was more of an ominous feel to them.

We turned a corner and found about three 'women' quickly gaining ground on us, swearing and slurring. "Excuse me," one barked at me. I obviously wasn't going to engage with them, as any verbal communication with these sorts of people gives them the green light to turn into monsters and rabid scum. Which is entirely encouraged and defended by the left wing establishment, which gleefully takes the sides of the 'working' classes against everyone else. When push comes to shove, the left wing judiciary is always there to defend them.

However, my silent approach failed, as I was met with a torrent of abuse for not doing whatever it was the female wanted me to do.

"I said excuse me which is the polite thing to do, fucking hell, fuck sake," said the foul wench. I later discovered from Dame D (she didn't mention it last night) that one of them pushed her on the shoulder to barge past. Had I known this, I'd have quite happily spent the night in the Leeds Bridewell having covered every inch of my fists with the blood of chav scum.

There you go. Fucking 'PACE' that, you cunts.

Moments after this minor yet wholly depressing incident, we found ourselves towards the bar near Merrion Street. A bunch of dodgy looking fuckers ran past us, which drew comment from another group of fuckers hanging out by the entrance to a grim pool hall establishment. Two of them broke off from the pack and flanked us. Dame D drew the lapels to her Vivienne Westwood jacket across her neck to conceal the quality jewelery I recently bought her, and in anticipation of a potential scene, I ushered her quickly across the road and into one of the bars I spotted on the 'amazing nights out in Leeds wish list'.

I queued at the bar, whilst Dame D blindly probed her way through the dingy darkness of the place to find some seating. I asked for a half a pint of beer for her, which came short measured, and my Diet Coke was in fact Anorexic Coke, thanks to the 12 pounds of ice that got shovelled into the glass.

The music was loud, but not good loud. It was a harsh, tinny, harsh loud. A loudness you get, and dislike, because of shit, cheap speakers. The seating was again, filthy, and stank of unwashed bodies, and despite the vague young and studenty feel of the place, the odd townie cunt came in with a bottle in hand, winging about like Begbie on coke. It wasn't for us.

So after a short while, we fucked off. On the way back to the car, riot vans of police roared up towards the Headrow, screaming and wailing as though demented alien spaceships, piloted by psychopathic Martians on Amphetamines.

This is what Robocop uses to get from the station, to a rowdy bar. Because, you know, the sight of riot vans and teams of fluorescent clad thugs wearing lots of metal fills the public with so much confidence.

You might think most of this is down the the fact we went to shit venues. I disagree. I think these places are what my research says they are: the best Leeds has to offer. By the laws of economics, goods and services tend to reach the standards that are deemed acceptable by the paying public. It's obvious.

No paying public, no profit, no business, no existence. That everything was so shit, says so much about society. The people are either that stupid and that bovine, they don't know how bad everything is. Or, they do know, but are too stupid or gutless to do anything about it. Like complain, or go elsewhere or move.

My solution is simple. I won't go back there for a night out. Sadly, the country is morphing into a cancerous carbuncle and a sickening disgrace thanks to years of socialism and authoritarian, stupid government. How long before the good bits are swamped over by low life and idiocy, and I have to do things like pay for language tuition so I can learn Greek or Spanish and move abroad?

These are rapidly becoming my options.

note to add: Some readers may find my tone in this piece to be snobby and arrogant. Good. I am snobby and I am arrogant when it comes to fucking cunts and losers. Why shouldn't I be? If this is your reaction, you might ask yourself why it is your reaction. Maybe you're a socialist prick, or someone who doesn't want to admit the awful truth about what has happened to Britain. Either way, I couldn't give a motherfuck. People suck, and that's just the fucking way it is. Bitches.

Nick Griffin on QT: My Comment

I've collected a few thoughts on last night's Question Time. Here they are on a platter.

Firstly, I was amazed at how poorly Griffin performed. It was obvious after the first ten minutes that he went on with a certain strategy. Namely, to drop the aggressive stuff and to come across as jovial and cuddly. Hence the overt expressions of politeness (he apologised humbly to Bonnie Greer on one or two occasions and empathised with a black member of the audience in what he identified as an erroneous quote about blacks and monkeys).

Except he took it too far, and either came across as weak, lacking in ideas and conviction and weirdly humourous when it wasn't appropriate or seemly (like where he laughed during questioning from Dimbleby about the Holocaust).

There was nothing in his performance that would have impressed non BNP members or current supporters. There was nothing there that would have reassured the present BNP mob.

However, that said, there are some blatant key fall outs from this broadcast. Firstly, Griffin was rounded upon by all members of the panel and a bunch of West London liberals for 95% of the entire show. As I said in my preview of the event, the British instinctively take the side of the underdog. Griffin isn't now loved all of a sudden, but I reckon there are many people out there who got annoyed by the pious gang tactics employed against the reviled One.

Secondly, anyone with a brain will have spotted how incredibly stupid most people on the panel and in the audience were. There were so many untruths, misconceptions and historical inaccuracies uttered, I lost count. Churchill was portrayed as an equal rights liberal non-racist. Which is ridiculous. This is the man who, when Home Secretary, ordered the firebombing of house that contained Russian Anarchists. His views on Gandhi weren't exactly 'politically correct', and contrary to the ridiculously ill-informed views of one member of the audience, he didn't fight the Nazis in order to save the Jews.

I'm no opponent of Churchill, but the way he was eulogised was bizarre in the context. Just because people don't like Griffin, and Griffin tries to link himself with Churchill, doesn't mean everyone suddenly has to become Churchill's posthumous best mate. It's embarassing.

Thirdly, a constant fact about Question Time is that it rigs its audiences. This is an inescapable truth. They screen the people who want to go on, so they know what sorts of people they want to be represented. Tories and right wingers are deliberately picked if they will suitably embarass themselves. The majority of people chosen are liberal left, and a disproportionate number of people will be from ethnic minorities. When you consider that only around 7% of people in the UK are from minorities, the BBC only ever represents London and the South East, wherever the bandwagon shifts.

The fact last night's broadcast was held in West London cements this theme even further.

Where am I going with this? The Question Time slant, be in panel or audience, is not representative of most of the country. I do not think the BNP is representative at all, but let's get some perspective here. The broadcast made it seem as if right wing ideas on immigration, identity and class are much less palatable than they may be in reality. Britain is still, largely, a right of centre country. QT makes it look left of centre. It's not true. Therefore a read between the lines is required.

One represents a million people in Britain who don't get on with others. The other represents a million people in Britain who don't get on with others. Meh.

Fourthly, Jack Straw effectively stated this: that immigration ain't much of an issue, that Labour did not and does not intend to do anything about it. That those who kick up a fuss are either small in number, or not worth listening to. He also dismissed the down sides to immigration and he dismissed any concerns over mass population growth.

Amazingly, he linked tough stances on immigration with authoritarianism. As though his was the party of freedom and liberty. A Spectacular claim, when you look at the lunatic authoritarian legislation he has brought in during his time at the Home Office.

No, no, no. He has got it all entirely wrong. Firstly, the BNP has grown precisely because there is a 'gap in the political market' vis a vis immigration. The main parties do not fulfill the political market and the supply for tough moves in this field is growing. He can prattle on all he wants, and so can the Tories, but unless politicians listen to people about things like high immigration, pressure on resources, the dilemmas facing the welfare state and the economy and issues relating to the disempowerment of Britain by the EU, outfits like Griffin's will grow.

It's a simple supply and demand equation. It is ignored at all our peril.

Also, a tough line on immigration is not at all authoritarian. It is only authoritarian, if we take the stance that we as Britons owe a moral and political responsibility to all the world's population. In other words, if we render the integrity and purpose of the nation state down to that of a blob of snot.

I believe to dismiss the concept of the nation state is ridiculous and unworkable. If we take that as a starting point, then we realise that it is the liberty and freedom of those who exist within Britain that must be supported. Therefore, we need to listen to what people democratically want. Most people don't want closed borders, but a tougher stance and a lower population. Again, supply and demand. People want less tax, a better life, safer environments, cleaner and nicer environments, and people around them that form part of a cohesive society.

Like I said earlier, most people are centre right. Most people want a bit more of a sensible, centre right state of affairs on immigration.

If this is constantly denied to the people, as it has been, the result will be a toughening of the stance. In the same way as a rare, luxury product will be sought after and will carry a higher price tag, there will be a growing number of angry / hungry people out there willing to raise the stakes to get what they want. Hence, votes for the BNP. Hence anger against extreme Islam and so on.

Thatcher defused all this 30 years ago. There is no Thatcher to do the same now, so we are entering shall we say, interesting waters.

I believe Griffin was given such a hard time, that no matter how bad he came across (and he did come across badly) the cauldron of tension out there is bound to simmer at a higher temp. The working classes are under the BNP spell. But how many struggling middle class people out there will be enraged by the arrogance of the liberal consensus, who blithely think that because of a few soundbites and pompous pronouncements about the BNP, suddenly all their own evils and wrongs have been nullified?

Let's face it, fuck Griffin. Who has been in power for 12 years and who has effectively run this country into the ground, following years of stagnation under Major? Who initiated two wars against Muslim countries, killing countless innocents and children into the bargain, just to please a sick neo-Con illegitimate government in the States?

It is oh so amazingly easy to prod Griffin with a stick, as though a Squid washed up on the shore. But people out there, watching QT, must surely know that it is possible for any right minded person to dismiss the BNP, whilst maintaining a very stern and intemperate opinion about how the progressive left have fucked everything.

I can't cope with Griffin and his sick outfit. People were right, he is a deceiver who would fuck everyone given a sniff of power. Sadly, however, he was right about the BBC. It is a bent outfit leading the charge for the liberal elites against the will of the British people. It doesn't take a fascist to realise this key fact. Libertarians and conservatives have been saying this for years.

The fact that everyone chuckled heartily in disdain, contempt and lofty piety when he said that speaks volumes.

Yeah, hardy-fucking-har-har. Very amusing, except it is perfectly true.

So what is worse, a nasty fascist party out of power, causing a stir by getting on the telly, or a nasty liberal fascist conglomerate of London centric tossers who are very much in power, and will remain as such even when Labour lose the next election?

The latter are destroying the country, the former only intend to do it in a very different way.

Aren't we the fucking lucky ones.

I urge you to vote in this Communist poll

What do they call it in the Country Club? A, er, 'hat tip'? *gulp*

Yeah, well, one of them to Obby the Clown. Because his latest piece flags up the existence of some poll held by a website called 'alcohol focus Scotland dot org'. Essentially, it's a typical Communist state exercise aimed at filling people with hard left authoritarian norms and ideas on how to live and breath.

The poll 'question' is: "cheap alcohol is damaging health and society. I support minimum pricing'. You then get the choice to vote 'yes' or 'no' (so the Communists haven't quite reached Scottish SNP Nirvana yet, as otherwise there'd be one choice, or two identical choices).

I urge you to go to the website and vote. Seeing as most of my readers are libertarians, I am fairly confident that people will end up voting the same way I did. If not, well, that's libertarianism for you!

Enjoy.

Nick Griffin, the BNP, QT and the Idiot Left

On Tuesday the 13 October 2009, I wrote a piece entitled 'The Predictable Build up to the anti-Nick Griffin QT Appearance'. In the piece, I noted the already high levels of tension amongst the loony left, who are poised to protest most ardently and vociferously at the BNP's right to speak or exist.

Here we are, on the cusp of the Question Time showing on the BBC, and everything I predicted is coming to pass as I type.

This article in the Times and this article in the Mail provide very current, up to the minute reporting on exactly what is kicking off down there in White City. The building is in the midst of being overrun, the police are all over the shop and tensions are so bad, staff aren't actually allowed to leave and go home. This is what happens, when people the left don't like get a bit of air time.

Can anyone else spot the irony? Anti fascist protesters, protesting against fascists, by being violent and by trying to stop someone from speaking. Hmmmm. Lovely stuff. I wish they were running the country, I'd feel so much freer and safer and happier.

I'll give the Mail credit. Sometimes, when they report current events soon after they have happened, or as they happen, they (occasionally) leave out editorial bias and leave in core facts. This is one of those rare examples, and the pictures they have somehow got hold of are excellent. They reveal much of what the public needs to know.

Oh, why don't you just fuck off you over-wrought, 'save-the-world', pious loony left cow.

Credit for the Fergie look-a-like demonstrator pic goes to AP

Have a look at those Daily Mail pictures of the protesters, particularly the 6th one down where they are facing off police from the inside of a stage door in White City BBC HQ.

Noticed anything? Well, here's my observation. They are almost all young, middle class, white, and either well to do students, or slumming it hippies and liberals living off of Mummy and Daddy trustafarian style.

Scroll through those snaps, and it isn't hard to see that these are the types of pricks who attend SWP and neo-Marxist rallies. Nice and representative of the people, obviously. And the girl with her fist in the air with a Keffiyeh wrapped round her. So, er, not extreme in her weird, white western views on the Middle East at all. Nooooooo. Not a bit of it.

These 'left' wingers are identical to the BNP, with two major exceptions. Firstly, their racisms and bigotries are different in terms of what and who they are directed at. And secondly, the BNP draws its support from the working classes, where the loony scum left draws its support primarily from the Vanessa Redgrave middle and upper middle classes. You know the types: they general read the 'G' and look down on everyone from a great, pompous height.

The left are doing themselves a grave disservice, if indeed they have any noble aims or sentiments at all, which I suspect may not be the case in many instances. If the left seriously care about people and community cohesion and security and justice for all, then they would stop this ridiculous approach of violently trying to bully, harass and silence their enemies.

The more sensible people see scenes like this, the more likely they are to have sympathy for the BNP. It's human nature. Add to that, the Englishman's predilection towards supporting the underdog, and you have problems.

I sometimes wish the BNP and the far left would both just fuck off and disappear into a congealed, gloopy swamp of molasses never to be seen or heard from again. But then I always stop myself and remember how critical, how crucial it is in a fair democracy for everyone to be allowed to speak freely. What a shame the 'anti-fascist' left have other ideas, not too dissimilar to the intentions of the BNP should they ever win power.

-- -- To Add, I will be posting my full thoughts on tonight's QT, straight after it has been shown. If it ends up going ahead. Tune in soon.

My political journey and why I am a political animal

Being political, I've decided, is not always a good thing. In fact, it is a handicap.

This is because being a political animal means that I see things, well, everything, through political eyes. I see how something, well, anything, could be the result of state action, the result of public policy and the result of political legacy from years gone by.

I also see how and why bad things are the result of incompetence and corruption and how things could be improved, if my sort of ideas had more sway. As I am unable to have much effect on all this, I am led down a one way street of frustration and irritation. Sometimes worse.

Hence why Mr Boatang and I set up Boaty & D. To provide an outlet for the thoughts of two (that's us) political animals. Two legends and genii.

But seriously, Boaty &D aside, this is quite a serious matter. I did not ask to be a political person. There's not much choice here. I just am. I always have been, since a very, very, abnormally young, age. I cannot do much about it. I've tried moving away from it. Very hard, in fact. But back I bounce, straight to the papers, straight to the forefront of discussion, and back at the rudder of the best, most up-and-coming, soon to be amazingly successful and popular co-run political blog of all time.

I have given this some thought, and I'm not sure it is so much of a co-incidence.

I grew up in a very peculiar sort of environment. My parents, bless their hearts, are not to be criticised and they did grand for a couple of off the wall odd balls. But it wasn't exactly the world's most regular English upbringing.

In some senses, it was an extremely libertarian household. When it came to my schooling and education, for instance, I was pretty much left to deal with it myself. 100% myself. With little or no input, guidance or sway. When I chose topics to take for GCSE and A-Level and degree, I chose stuff entirely off my own bat and there were no questions asked.

In other senses, it was weirdly authoritarian. Some weeks I could go out and stay out and no-one would ask much. Other weeks would come and suddenly I'm Wayne on tag from fucking Feltham Young Offender's Institute, all because I was caught with a bit of beer breath after one of those cheeky 15 year old sneaking off to the 'offie' sessions with my mates.

The Boaty & D team, starting a collection in a High Street near you soon...

Music was utterly frowned on. It pretty much wasn't tolerated at all and never played in the house, especially if any of the music was 'black'. Loud and intolerable volume wasn't the stuff that came out of speakers, it was the stuff that was emitted from two small ear phones.

I could eat what I wanted, and television was unpoliced, unless, weirdly, it was known that a naughty Channel 4 film was going to be on (God forbid an adolescent young lad should develop a *gasp* sexual interest). Yet, conversely, my private space was not my own. There was no boundary between my space and anyone else's. So I had that 'mum bowls into the room at will' thing, and my bedroom was decorated and designed to my old man's spec of how he wanted his old study.

I could never change that.

All this stuff might seem utterly tangential and pointless. It isn't. It builds a multi-faceted picture of why I am me, and why I am passionate about politics.

Did I mention? My old man was and still is and always will be obsessive about his politics. Which, I don't mind admitting here, is brilliantly hard line and extreme to the borderline of what might be appropriately conveyed in any polite company. He is, again, paradoxically and idiosyncratically, a fair and non-racist person in how he treats and considers individuals. Yet a person who is far to the right of the Tories and who is nationalistic, protectionist, pro-free trade, neoconservative and interventionist all at the same time.

Fair play to him though, he joined UKIP a few months ago after reading their entire manifesto online. I can think of worse parties to join, and that he has continually rejected the BNP is to his credit. Even though many of that party's policies seem to fit well with his own attitudes. Particularly on crime, law and order and immigration.

So, I grew up in a very right wing household, where I took those politics onboard and was very much influenced by my old man's ideas from a small age. I started off life as a right wing, social and cultural conservative, in the Peter Hitchens vein. Except perhaps a little more to the right. Religion came and went as an influence around the ages of 15-18.

I went to University, and rejected the outrageous propaganda and brainwashing attempts of my hard left wing tutors, lecturers and peers. Once in the world of work, my politics began to moderate. Probably as a result of a bit of life experience kicking in, and the fact that I had broadened my mind through education, travel and such the like.

My time working for a political party during the 2001 General Election was extreme 'nail in coffin' time for my more right wing, authoritarian tendencies. I found the views of my colleagues and peers at that time woefully disturbing, naive and plain wrong.

By the time I got to my early to mid twenties, I had divested myself of my social conservatism. I no longer shared that rigid platform of those who consider abortion wrong and sexual choices questionable. The rights and integrity of the individual, not the state, became paramount.

By my late twenties, I started to see myself as somewhat of a political maverick. I did not know I was a 'libertarian' at that time. But instinctively, the mosaic was in place and my political ideas were finally taking shape.

I would not say I have developed suspicions and hatreds of authority and the state. I do not instinctively despise all authority, because often bodies and structures are put in place not for evil reasons, but for altruistic ones. But I have long realised that where wings of the state exist, power accumulates and power corrupts and attracts people with vested interests to accumulate power and build fiefdoms. Therefore where possible, it is preferable to have no state body and maximum personal freedom than the reverse, irrespective of arguments about efficiency and freedom.

History has taught us well. Where individual endeavor is in the attendance and where freedom is found, progress and good is seen. The era of the classical liberal has been slandered and tarnished for so long now, that everyone sees Victorian Britain as synonymous with death, poverty, injustice and social evil. Yes, these things were there, but so were the people and the ideas that brought immense beauty and prosperity and legacy for this country and the entire world.

Our inventors, our architecture, our charities, our social and civic institutions our infrastructures our education systems our strong social mores. All of these things were cemented in the days of the classical liberal. Since then, everything that has come to pass has given us small material benefit at the expense of the bigger things in life. Hence why society has eroded into a small, broken and rotting egg by the roadside.

So you can see that, despite my persistence in my political beliefs, being political brings me misery, because I live in a world I do not get along with. I am also an eccentric and a bit mad, and I don't think our rigid, authoritarian and plastic, celeb obsessed brainwashed society accepts or tolerates eccentrics.

I wish I were born into a different set of circumstances sometimes. But then, that would mean my dad would not be the bloke I grew up knowing as my dad. And I wouldn't change my old man for anything in the world. I love him for who he is.

So I guess I am stuck with being me.

Mervyn King Makes Basic Leap In Logic

You have to laugh, or else you'll cry. So goes the ditty anyway and when it comes to the economic state of this country a truer word couldn't be spoken.

Regulation of the financial system is certainly no bad thing, although politicians are often guilty of getting things in a muddle when they try and liberate markets. Financial markets should be free to operate, to create new products and to make large profits. In the same measure rules should be in place to make sure those activities are not just free from fraud, but are also financially 'viable', that is to say payable.

Financial institutions have no real problem with this provided that the old age rule of predictability and stability is adhered to, as opposed to random changes that make the placing of bets even riskier.

That is where the whole term 'light touch regulation' misses the target. Light touch does not mean no touch and the lightness being applied should be in the right places. For the last 15 years it has unfortunately come to pass that light touch regulation has required blind eyes and the allowing of markets to do as they wish. For instance the bundling of collateralized debt obligations to such a level that they end up being top rated investments when they were, in hindsight anyway, clearly not. Not to mention very dubious accounting practices and Special Investment Vehicles to offload debt, for instance at Enron.

A great example of how the market can create something that is not only dangerous when the music eventually stops, but has its very danger obscured beyond countless layers of, effectively, spin, one only has to look at RMBSCDOS. Residential mortgage-backed security collateralized debt obligations. A name and product so complex that it is no wonder the financial world unravelled in the way it did.

So step forward Mervyn King. A man who has been as the Bank of England during the whole period and, although not so much to blame as others, is still complicit. His great idea after all this time? "separating out the essential, humdrum utility side of banking from the speculative, more casino side that has got us all into so much trouble."

Banks are now allowed to take part in every facet of financial life, whereas before they were very much not. This situation is ridiculous. It should come as no surprise that Darling is totally opposed to King's suggestion.

Taking very safe and boring funds that expect a simple yield and then pumping that cash into very risky investments indeed is a dangerous practice. When one card falls the whole lot collapses and that is exactly what we have seen. See Northern Rock for an example.

Building Societies are, in the main, retail banks. Most of these then also take part in every other type of banking that there is, increasing the risk and the profits.

By separating the usual day to day retail activities from the investment machines the issue of moral hazard can be implemented far easier and in saying this King is perfectly right. Offering government security to current accounts, savings and so on creates stability and trust in the sector, by removing that security from the more speculative aspects of investment banking a clear signal of caution and responsibility is being sent.

This latest bubble is not the lfirst and it will most certainly not be the last. But that does not mean that the same mistakes should be allowed to happen again with no lessons being learnt. The very fact that this government is so against reform to go with the bail out speaks volumes about how weak it is.

A government is not there to control the market, far from it, but it is there to create the economic framework to facilitate that market in a way that the public and consumers can predict and feel secure with, just as much as the financial institutions themselves.

This government simply doesn't understand that. When the City says 'Trust us', they say 'Okay, you're the experts'. Just like with every other sector of the economy New Labour is incapable of instigating reform with investment.

Light touch regulation is not the problem, it is simply where the touches are being applied. In many cases there is no touch whatsoever and it is you and I that picks up the tab.

Fleet Street has officially lost touch with the British people

Don't you sometimes get the feeling these days that not all is well? I know, the economy is fucked and Labour has made things worse for the country and hardworking younger people are fucked etc etc. But I'm talking about the feeling Seagulls get when they decide to squawk and flap towards the mainland. That 'a storm is a comin'' feeling.

Every country on earth goes through cycles. Sometimes those cycles are unique to the continent, the country or a specific region. But as time goes by, a country will (like a man's bank balance through any given calender month) treat its inhabitants to a spot of de ja vu. Not all of that is good. Sometimes, it is catastrophic.

Over history, when Britain has run into a bad patch of strife, corruption, social decay and bad management, the result is civil war, international war and a continued pattern of unrest, crime and social breakdown.

These days, we don't tend to have wars. Civil wars are suppressed by an all seeing Big Brother state and a massive, authoritarian Robocopesque police force. People are also generally unsociable beings in the modern era, too, and are therefore less likely to combine to create an organised shit storm.

But the factors are all in place for a the masses to kick off (something I have mentioned many times in posts this year).

One of the factors, or should I say, warning lights, that tells me we are heading towards troubled and worrying times in Britain is the fact that the mainstream media (i.e. Fleet Street) is becoming less and less in tune with the mood of Joe Public.

This is actually quite a severe problem. The British, being a people who generally accept and tolerate a lot of shit, are appeased if they see and read people who agree with them, understand their plight and offer ideas and ways forward. The Fourth Estate has always been there for that.

Now, the Fourth Estate can generally be counted as either useless, or part of the problem. Part of the ruling social democratic, out of touch, pointless elite that is either in Whitehall, Number 10 or in places of social, cultural, economic or moral importance.

Take this article by Rachel Sylvester in today's Times as a perfect example of what I am on about. I could easily have plucked any given absurd, inane and fatuous article written by someone like Polly Toynbee or Jackie Ashley or some such numb nut. But this is a piece written by a 'moderate' hack, in a 'moderate', mainstream 'centre right' newspaper.

The article attempts to inform readers that Labour's 'get out of jail free' card, its future and its prospects rest with the talents and fortunes of ...

...

The Miliband brothers.

The absurd piece would have been shameful by a Guardian writer. But by the Times? In a period where its middle class readership are up to their fucking necks in the fall out of New Labour policy disasters? During a time where its intelligent readership have had enough of being overtaxed, overworked and robbed of any kind of future?

Sylvester's simpering piece starts off as a bit of background, slips quietly into quasi-hagiography and loftily and embarrassingly ends by telling readers that:

"Granita has closed but it is time for the Miliband brothers to go to their local Greek restaurant in Primrose Hill and agree a Lemonia pact. As one Cabinet minister says: “It’s up to the brotherhood now.”"

What can you say to that? I'm not being partisan here. I slag off the Tories for sport on this site. But Jesus Christ, is this woman representing the thoughts of anyone outside of Milbank's most ardent, delusional Labourites here? Does she seriously consider the Milibands, after what they have provided, as any kind of solution or saviour to or for anything whatsoever?

I can't imagine in my wildest nightmare that any Times or non-Times reader could ever connect with the sentiments in this piece. Yet this is nothing unusual. Politics isn't politics anymore. It's not about the people and what they want, it is about a very similar cabal of people who belong to different parties and news and TV channels, and who live in similar areas and know similar people, dominating society.

It is about taking power and influence for granted, wanting to be seen as cool and moderate and lovable, and getting in there amidst the capital's liberal elite.

That's it. That sums up the mainstream media, the BBC, the main broadcasters, British journalists (mostly) and Westminster to a tee - London and South East of England, white, middle class, foppish, trendy, rah-rah, Hooray Henry, slumming it in N1 cunts.

We're fucked.

I smell blood round the corner. And it will begin to flow once it's too late and once the BNP aren't the joke outfit everyone laughed and scoffed at any more. It will begin when extremists are either banned, or muffled. It will begin only once the elites feel the fanning flames on their doorsteps.

And no-one will report on who is angry with whom, who is fighting whom and what is going on, because everyone (like Sylvester) is too busy poking around in the dark with their heads up their culos.

In short, I predict a riot. How big it will be and how it unfolds is in Mystic Mog's area of expertise.

The politics of our education system

Education. I won't say it thrice. It is difficult to think of anything more important in a person's life than the education they receive. It dictates your very future from where you will live to what job you will have, maybe even the person you meet and marry.

It has always been at the forefront of politics of course, but always, it strikes me, in the most unambitious and cowardly manner. Bold soundbites concerning how things will be better, how there will be more teachers that can't be sacked, how schools will get more money to waste. But all the time the same hand is squeezing the very democracy out of the education system.

Like any investment, reform is demanded. The reform however, as found in the NHS, is usually silent and ignored. It is not the improvement of service, but the cowtowing of that service more and more to the state.

One hand is happy to build nice new schools, pump money into reading and TV adverts for books, but the other is taking the reigns and demanding ever increasing control. More instruction is handed down by a clique of experts handpicked by the Minister, new Acts are passed and new regulation placed upon teachers. Forms, requirements, instruction, what to do and how to do it; trust is removed completely.

Just last week the Primary Review of education called for primary education to not start until the age of 6, in line with many other countries. The benefits for this are actually mixed depending on the subject, but it represents one absolute: the removal of control.

In fact in an ironic twist Ed Balls has announced that he is in fact lowering the age children start school to 4. Better get them all in early I guess, that's a few months that simply cannot be missed in their science teaching. Because let's face it, what all 4 year olds need is a more in depth knowledge of science.

The LPUK view is that of the Swedish voucher system, and is one I fully support. Freedom of choice of your child's education is paramount and has nothing to do with the new concept of 'parent power', which is simply a new direction for 'community involvement' where neither actually means what they suggest.

Parents have the right to decide how their child is taught, when they are taught it and even what they are taught. It is no business of the state how a parent does these things. Indeed the whole point of the Swedish system, which has pointedly worked, is that if one school is rubbish, you go elsewhere. You pay your tax, you get an annual voucher, you spend it where you like. Your choice. Schools in turn have control over what is taught and by whom and in what fashion.

It should be pointed out that this is clearly more fair and in fact an increase of choice over any abolition of tax and the formation of total private schools in the traditional sense. In that case the parent would have a very finite period in which to find serious money. Even at the rate of the £6,000 a year proposed, if you have three children that's £18,000 a year which is never going to be recouped via the lack of income tax when you earn £21,000 per annum.

But would there be such an issue if the system actually worked? Of course not, but it palpably doesn't. In fact it fails completely.

It is a disgrace in this country that 1 in 8 children leave primary education not being able to read or write. It is a disgrace that half of 16 year olds don't get A* to C at GCSE. A-Levels have been made easier, pass rates lowered and more and more pupils are effectively being given high end qualifications that are no longer worth the paper they are written on.

They get you nowhere. Fees were introduced by Labour for university and have backfired in a spectacular fashion. The ease of A-Level qualification has created an American style college system whereby an increasing amount of non-academic requirements are placed upon students, simply to separate out those who should be there and those who shouldn't. Go to any decent campus these days and you will be taken aback by the amount of 18 year olds who quite simply should not be there.

An explosion in degrees in pointless subjects, a huge increase in vocational undergraduates who learn nothing and leave university incapable of thinking. Much less the 16 year olds who can't do anything and simply sign on, or the 11 year olds that a finished before they have even started.

All this because of politicians telling teachers how to teach. They dictate courses, ages, methods. They preach localism and community, but refuse to actually trust parents, Local Authorities and individual schools to just get on with it.

The education system in this country has been decimated by central control. It is the perfect example of what state centric obsessive control of individual liberty produces and no politician will ever have the nerve to turn the tide, because it would represent a loss of that control. In order to defend themselves from accusations of a failing system and 'More must be done', they have tightened their grip again and again.

The consequence is obvious: the consistent worsening of this countries educational standards over time. The solution stares us in the face: the reimposition of individual, parental control through the introduction of a voucher system and the granting of autonomy for schools, colleges and universities.

The Sun Gives Us The Best Front Page Ever?

A bit of lunchtime light relief is in order and I couldn't help but feel that today's Sun has quite possibly the greatest headline of all time.

This is obviously very, very important news in the current climate and I'm pleased the Sun has told us this. Although to be fair the real news is that the world's fattest bloke doesn't live in Glasgow.

My ideas on Libertarianism

What the fuck is wrong with people?

I express a view, and suddenly I'm not a libertarian for expressing the view. How does that work? Some people say it is because of the content of my view. That, because my view is that something I consider bad ought to be subject to a public boycott, then I am de facto a fascist and anti-libertarian.

This is ridiculous. According to the logic of my opponents, no human can ever consider something moral, immoral, right, wrong, good or bad. We are to consider ourselves particles in an anarchic universe, where anyone can do, say or be anything without anyone ever passing comment *

* This is of course subject to the usual rules of 'do as I say, not as I do' rank, dogmatic hypocrisy commonly found amongst weirdos and extremists.

For me, being Libertarian is really rather a simple affair. I believe in universal human rights. I believe in a rational world, as depicted by Kant, where people live their lives in consideration of others as it is such behaviour that ultimately leads to people being good to eachother and where they can cooperate and get on.

Being Libertarian is not only about looking after your own liberties, but in a very rational and natural way, looking out for the liberties of others. That is to say, rational individuals, acting in the interests of themselves, their families and other people. Without coercion or interference from outside, statist forces.

Sadly, many of my 'libertarian' peers have entered the public domain, shouting and screaming the odds whilst giving libertarianism a dirty name. They spout hate, bitterness, bile and selfish, nasty nonsense.

Their politics isn't libertarianism, it's selfishism. It's 'me-me-me fuck youism'. It's a weird form of anarcho-capitalism, dressed up in libertarian clothing. Their views on tax, economics, the role of the state, democracy, pretty much everything, has no basis in any form of age old libertarian philosophy.

Their views on free speech are bizarre. It is rooted entirely in whatever it is that suits their particular agendas at the time. It is also rooted in weird concepts about private property, where rights and freedoms are nullified and destroyed, on account of the fact that whoever happens to own a domain or means of production has the final say over everything.

These people are enslaving extremists, they are the diametric mirror opposite image of Stalinists. Replace the state with ultimate anarchic 'fuck you' 'freedom' and the sanctity of ownership, and there you have it.

They ignore classical liberalism and classical liberal economics. They consider this stuff too wishy washy and lefty and socially democratic.

I say slash taxes, they say abolish them.
I say reform democracy, decentralise power, reduce the state and introduce popular referenda. They say destroy it all and let the rich and powerful take over everything and fuck everyone else.

I say give charities a greater prominence in society, they say abolish all forms of welfarism and fuck the poor.

I say give people more freedom, but retain a skeletal state led framework regarding areas where there are strong neighbourhood effects. Like, for example, forms of publicly paid schooling, town planning and certain services that are inappropriate for private hands. They say, destroy all quangos, destroy councils, abolish planning regulations and privatise every last scrap of land and service.

And when it comes to free speech, I say everyone should have absolute free speech on all occasions, and it is perfectly in keeping with libertarianism to call for boycotts because to boycott is to involve yourself in the process of the free market. It is the exercising of public, consumer choice. If people listen to me, that also means that the 'market' has worked. My views have currency, people like them, buy into them. If they don't, the market has gone against me, people still buy the Daily Mail and my exercise has failed.

But the extremists hate this. Why? They say I am advocating removing the Mail's public platform. How utterly absurd is this.

They can't stand the idea of the powerful and the right wing being challenged from below. These enemies of mine instinctively despise working people, poorer people, people they consider less-than and they worship the greedy, the rich, the nasty, the corrupt and the powerful. Secretly, despite the Mail being a fascist rag, they like it really. Or if they don't, then they share their hatred and bitterness against their fellow man in the same way as that deranged paper.

You only have to look at some of these 'libertarian' blogs to get an idea of what they think about people. It isn't about freedom and choice and liberty. It's about taking a strong and dogmatic anti-state agenda, and running with it towards their own selfish ends.

I am anti state, but I have no agenda. The world my enemies propose, however, is a scary and horrid place and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

My enemies pretend there is no such thing as centrist, left or moderate libertarianism. For them, it's an invention. A fraud even, put up there by social democratic shysters and deceivers. They see me as a social democrat, even though anyone in their right mind could never arrive at this conclusion.

Stick me on QT, and I'd be howled out the hall as an extreme right winger. So what does this say about my opponents.

As much as it sickens me to say this, Peter Mandelson was right when he described the myth spreaders about Gordon Brown's health as 'extreme right wing bloggers'. Some aren't, obviously, there is room for generalisation here, but overall, the big mouths screaming and ranting without any sense of proportion are the loonies. The people who have no fucking clue what they are doing to this great, historical and proud political creed.

I see it as my duty to defend it and Mr B and I will always be at hand to genuinely wave the flag for proper libertarianism, a decent moderate form of libertarianism and one not based on hate and bile.

We are fair minded classical liberals and moderate libertarians. Join us, and fuck the loons.