Month: October 2015

Never since the 1962 Cuban crisis have we faced the same danger of an annihilating world war. The criminal regime whose collapse Putin sees as ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century’ was the menace then. Putin’s own criminal regime is the menace now.

However, conservative media and social networks are brimming with demented panegyrics for Russia’s provocations in Syria.

Putin is being depicted as a fighter of terrorism, striking blows for Christianity and international law. According to today’s useful idiots, the term ungratefully coined by Lenin to describe his Western fans, Putin pursues not a single selfish objective.

Onne finds Putin’s aversion to terrorism hard to believe. He’s a proud and unrepentant officer in the satanic organisation that murdered 60 million in the USSR alone. “There’s no such thing as ex-KGB. This is for life,” said Putin, for once truthfully.

Putin’s ascent to the Kremlin was precipitated by his alma mater blowing up blocks of flats in Russia, blaming it on the Chechens and bombing their capital Grozny flat – even though Russians made up 80 per cent of the city’s population.

When the Chechens fought back by taking hostages, Putin countered their terrorism with his own. When in 2002 Chechens took hostages in a Moscow theatre, Putin’s men pumped poison gas in, killing, in addition to the 40 terrorists, 140 hostages.

Two years later the Chechens took over a school in North Caucasus. Putin’s troops opened fire, killing 385 hostages, most of them children. The Chechens got away.

Throughout its reign the KGB junta fronted by Putin has murdered, roughed up or imprisoned hundreds of political opponents. In the process Putin pioneered nuclear terrorism, so far on a small scale.

Hence trusting Putin’s supposedly altruistic motives in Syria is hard. Easier to discern are his real motives, falling into several categories.

Economic. Russia’s economy heavily depends on the export of hydrocarbons at the highest possible price.

Even when oil prices were sky-high, those who derived the greatest benefit were members of Putin’s ruling elite made up of the KGB/FSB and organised crime. Most others lived in abject conditions. (Suffice it to say that 25 per cent of Russian dwellings have no sewerage, and 20 per cent no plumbing.)

Now, with oil prices low, pushing them up is the only way to avert disaster, but that’s easier said than done. The fracking revolution in America and the slowdown of China’s economy have combined to keep the demand for Putin’s oil down. Since the law of supply-demand hasn’t yet been repealed, the only way to bring the price back up is to distort the supply.

Hence Russia has a vested interest in converting the Middle Eastern chaos into an all out war, spilling into the Arabian Peninsula. Fanning the Sunni-Shiite conflict, which is the effect of Putin’s air raids, serves that purpose perfectly.

Strategic. Putin’s media are making no secret of the conflict’s nature. Russia isn’t fighting for any particular group. It’s fighting against what they call ‘the Anglo-Saxon world’.

Russia’s greatest ally in the conflict so defined is ‘Death to America’ Iran and its assorted Shiite stooges, such as Hezbollah.

Obama has already cleared the way for the ayatollahs to develop nuclear weapons, which will present a mortal danger to Israel first and the West second. Yet the on-going conflict makes it impossible for Israel to launch an attack similar to the 1981 Ozirak raid. Doing so now would put Israel in the untenable position of appearing to be an Isis ally.

In addition to conscripting 150,000 new recruits, Putin is moving into Syria sophisticated electronic jammers and surface-to-air missiles. Since Isis has no air force, and mobile phones represent its most sophisticated electronic gear, this confirms whom Putin sees as Russia’s real enemies.

Geopolitical. Russia’s aggressive wars have finally turned her into a pariah state. This means she has to seek new geopolitical advantages against the West.

Turning most of the Middle East into her de facto dominion would serve this end nicely. Russia would acquire strongholds on the Mediterranean, something she has sought throughout her history.

Psychological. The Russians traditionally identify fear with respect (boitsa, znachit uvajayet is the Russian proverb to that effect). And respect has been in short supply historically and especially lately.

This always rankles Russia’s despotic rulers (the only kind the country has ever had). Yet Putin’s aggression against the Ukraine turned him overnight into an internationally marginal figure, respected only by his coterie of useful idiots.

Hence the desire to earn respect by fostering fear. And what can achieve that end better than creating a danger of world war, triggered either deliberately or accidentally?

One can only regret that the craven inadequacy of our own governments has pushed so many otherwise good people into the ranks of useful idiots. When one side in a conflict doesn’t even realise there’s a war on, the result is predictable.

  

 

  

 

 

Which cowboy built this economy then? Oh no, gov, can’t pin this one on me.

Look, mate, this house was falling down, like, when I got the call. 2010 it was, when the call came. I was having me cuppa Rosie, listening to N**gaz With Attitude, when me mate Dave called, saying George, I want you to be me builder, mate. Shore the booger up, djahmean?

Off I go like a goodun, and what do I find? The debt is well weak, way down. Not even a trillion, mate, just over a half is all. Ain’t big enough to keep the welfare roof over tenants’ heads, djahmean?

So I put me scaffolding up – it’s made by Austerity, you know them blokes in Westminster – and go to work. Bit of repointing here, some grouting there and look at it now. 1.36 trillion quid and going up well strong! Sorted.

Then them Greeks call me mate Dave, saying Dave, giza hand, mate, every year we go over the budget, half a per cent at least. It’s like we have a grand but spend a grand-five – no good that, ain’t no way to build an economy.

And me mate Dave says too bloody right, can’t build an economy that way. Look at me mate George the Builder, he says. Spends five per cent more ‘n he has every year, that’s 50 quid over every budget grand, and the house is growing like Corbyn’s support.

That’s the way to build, Dave says. Attaboy George. That way you’re guaranteed the debt will stay well up and never fall down.

And people will trust you. They see that Austerity scaffolding on the building, they know George the Builder’s at work. Satisfaction guaranteed, djahmean?

And it ain’t just houses, mate. Roads, railways, airports, power-stations – I can build them all. Just call your George the Builder, show him the dosh, and Dave’s your uncle, Theresa’s your aunt. Sorted.

Where’s the dosh going to come from? That’s your problem, mate, not mine. You make it, I spend it, djahmean? Do what I do when I’m short – borrow. Easy as pie, a right doddle, mate. Things get built, houses go up, so does the debt – sorted.

A new way to build, that’s what I, George the Builder, stand for. Power to the people, djahmean? People like me and me mate Dave.

The other day we was having a swift pint of wifebeater at King’s Head, and Dave says, George me old China, he says, it’s like doing a slag who’s pissed unconscious. You do her, and she don’t even know she got done.

Next morning she wakes up all sore, calls the filth, and you say, who me? She done it herself, gov, she voted to get done, djahmean? Consent of the done, like. Judge gives her a kick up the Khyber, you go down the pub – sorted.

Well smart, Dave is. That’s what the building trade is all about, take it from me. As long as we have them Russians, Chinese and Arabs buying up me houses, things will go up. And when they stop – well, things will still be going up. Don’t know how, but they will. Up and up, that’s what it’s all about, djahmean? Up’s the word, mate.

Just listen to your mate George the Builder. You know what me slogan is? Got it from that Sherman from way back: Of the people, by the people, for the people. And up the people’s.

Sorted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

First a little quote for your delectation, see what you make of it:

So I’ma let’em know how a nigga’s livin’

Checking the muthafuckas cause nobody ain’t givin’ a damn thing

To a nigga, a real nigga

So I’m livin’ by the muthafuckin’ trigger

This verse comes from the signature-song lyrics of N**gaz With Attitude, widely known as the world’s nastiest rap band. These lyrics, just take my word for it, are in no way exceptional – they represent this band’s standard fare.

Now what kind of man would describe himself as a devoted fan of NWA? I know what you’re going to say: degenerate, moron, savage, barbarian, all those nice words. But hold your horses: it’s our future prime minister you’re talking about.

For it was Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne who owned up to his affection for these artists in what the papers described as his ‘revealing interview’.

It was indeed that, highly revealing. What it revealed is that, when Dave starts earning his lecture-circuit billions, we’re likely to have as PM a man whom one could describe as a revolting nonentity only at a kinder moment.

There are only two possibilities here: either he’s telling the truth or lying. I submit that in either case he’s unfit to lead our government, or indeed to occupy his present position.

If he is lying, it can be for one reason only: to offset his upper-class image by posing as a man raised in the gutter and anxious to return there – a true man of the people. He needn’t bother: we already know that his ‘class’ is a thin veneer concealing a typical spiv reaching for the brass ring.

Belonging to the upper classes ought to mean more than having a father who sells enough wallpaper for the family to live high off the hog and put their young through expensive schools. It ought to involve espousing and upholding the highest cultural, moral and intellectual values.

This doesn’t necessarily mean being a highly cultured, moral and intellectual individual himself, though that couldn’t hurt. It does, however, mean knowing what makes a country civilised and trying to keep it so.

It’s enough to look at George’s record in public life to see that he doesn’t fall into that category – no man who is systematically taking the country’s economy to the brink of collapse, while pretending that prosperity is in full swing, can possibly be civilised.

But it’s possible that George wants to go even further, to pitch his populism at the lowest level possible, judging correctly that this is where most of the potential electorate can be found. If that’s true, he shouldn’t be allowed within swearing distance of Number 10 – no man who craves an office to that extent is qualified to take it.

The other possibility is that he’s telling the truth, that he really is a fan of NWA. This would mean that he doesn’t even know what our civilisation is – and what he knows he hates.

No man able to sit down and listen to such effluvia (I’d go so far as to say ‘any pop music’, but some may regard such a view as too extreme), never mind liking it, is fit to be a public figure of any kind. This kind of preference betokens much more than simply a lack of aesthetic taste, though this is bad enough.

An NWA fan is ipso facto a barbarian, which word in its original meaning designated a hostile outsider to a civilisation. It stands to reason that such a man should never occupy one of this civilisation’s highest political offices.

And you know what’s the worst thing about George’s public declaration of his taste in music? That he doesn’t even realise how monstrous it sounds.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s start with a simple observation: just about every great thinker in recorded history believed in God – and by history I mean either side of 1858, the year Darwin created the world.

‘Just about’ is an important qualification because, fully applying oneself to the task, one could dig up a few personages who were both serious thinkers and atheists. However, there would be so few of them that they could only serve as exceptions that prove the rule.

Within the civilisation formed by Abrahamic religions, believing in God – especially after 1858 – means rejecting the materialist explanation of being and existence, and accepting the Biblical one.

For thinkers, great or otherwise, this means starting from the original act of faith (referred to as hypothesis in scientific circles) and then holding it to scientific, philosophical and logical investigation.

Hence most serious thinkers must believe that the Biblical version withstands such investigation better than the competing one. That, however, isn’t what our systematically brainwashed public believes.

Anyone going through what passes for our educational system isn’t only not taught how to think logically, never mind philosophically, but is actively discouraged from doing so.

As a result, the people boasting within their ranks Aquinas, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Leibnitz, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg et al are commonly seen as silly Bible-thumping flat-earthers, whereas the group accepting on faith the incoherent rants of Dawkins et al are rational, sophisticated individuals benefiting from every achievement of modern science.

Yet, by showing that our cherished notion of gradual progress isn’t just excruciatingly vulgar but also intellectually unsound, science blows materialism out of the water.

So how do we answer the question of where our material world, with us in it, came from? Only five common answers exist.

ONE: Billions-zillions of years ago the world was in a state of chaos. Then, for some obscure reason, often described as the Big Bang, the chaos imploded and since then has been evolving from the simple to the complex – from some primary cell all the way to Richard Dawkins.

TWO: The world has existed in eternity.

THREE: The world self-created out of nothing.

FOUR: God originally created the world as some kind of primary matter and then guided its evolution to its present state.

FIVE: The world was created by God in its complete form and has been deteriorating ever since.

Of these, only FIVE doesn’t clash with the Laws of Thermodynamics: the First Law, stating that nothing comes out of nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit), and the Second, stating that, left to themselves, all natural processes develop towards increasing entropy, that is chaos and disorder.

Scientists object that both Laws talk about a closed system, which the Earth isn’t because it receives energy from outside sources, mainly the Sun. However, they flounder when asked how then the two Laws were discovered in the first place – and they are laws, not theories like Darwinism. For that to happen, they had to be proved to work universally, meaning they also apply to the problem at hand.  

Hence ONE contradicts the fundamental, empirically established Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolution, a spontaneous, gradual increase in the complexity of proteins all the way to man, is impossible – no matter how many trillions-zillions of years we assign to this process. The Law says that under no conditions can chaos develop into order.

TWO also clashes with the Second Law. If our universe had no beginning in time, by now it would have sunk into chaos. No organised structures we observe in such abundance (such as man himself) would exist.

THREE clashes with the First Law, according to which energy, and therefore matter (e = mc²), can’t appear out of nothing. And before things evolve, they have to be.

FOUR, which is theistic evolution popularised, among others, by Teilhard de Chardin,runs into the same objections as ONE. It doesn’t matter whether evolution was started by Darwin or God – if ameliorating development towards greater order and complexity were possible, the Second Law wouldn’t have been discovered at all.

FIVE, thus, is the only version that agrees with both laws. God created matter – it didn’t appear out of nothing by itself, which the First Law says is impossible. Original sin then compromised not only man but also the material world, which since then has been steadily deteriorating in accordance with the Second Law.

Believing in Darwinian evolution as an all-encompassing explanation is therefore tantamount to rejecting the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is a possible position to take. It doesn’t, however, quite tally with the belief that atheism is based on science, while religion comes from nothing but blind faith.

For almost two centuries now Darwinism has been given the benefit of the doubt it doesn’t merit. Since it has wide political and social applications, this slipshod, unscientific theory has been touted as fact.

It isn’t. If it were, it wouldn’t be called a theory any longer. In fact, few theories in the history of science have survived for more than a generation or two. They are either proved to be scientific facts (like the Laws of Thermodynamics) or else consigned to museums of past curiosities.

Darwinism survives because it neatly dovetails with modernity’s other pet theories, such as Marxism. Both equip it with the false notion of progress, on which it depends for self-vindication.

That notion is as vulgar as our materialist modernity itself – for all the sophisticated gadgetry with which it masks its vulgarity and intellectual paucity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lord Sugar, who was given his peerage by the Labour Party, has inadvertently raised a problem to which I, for one, can relate.

Having left the party last May, His Lordship yesterday expressed his horror at the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn ever forming a government: “If they ever got anywhere near electing him… then we should all move to China or somewhere like that and let this place just rot.”

The thought is sound in principle, but wanting in detail.

It’s true that Corbyn, speaking through his shadow chancellor, has pledged to “ferment the overthrow of capitalism.” It’s also true that every attempt to overthrow capitalism, in whichever part of the world it has been made, has been accompanied by a massive cull of capitalists, a term loosely defined as anyone the overthrowers don’t like.

And yes, escaping from such developments is a time-honoured practice. It’s not just an attack on capitalism that can trigger an exodus – any form of oppression is a powerful stimulus for people to run away.

The country in which I had the misfortune to be born provides a useful illustration to this law of history. Russia became Russia (as opposed to Muscovy or Tartary, which was how it was tagged in Elizabethan maps) in the 16^th century, in the reign of the first Russian tsar, Ivan IV.

Ivan the Terrible was one of the most carnivorous rulers in Russian history, which is saying a lot. Hence, when he sent an expeditionary corps under Prince Kurbsky to fight in the west, the corps closed ranks and defected in its entirety, mostly to Poland and Lithuania.

That established a useful precedent. Emulating proverbial rodents, Russians have been fleeing from their perennially sinking ship throughout history. Hundreds and hundreds of diplomats, intelligence officers, writers, scientists, sailors would defect the moment their feet touched foreign soil – this even during relatively quiet periods.

During more turbulent periods, the numbers reached thousands and then millions. For example, when the Russian army entered Paris in 1814, some 20,000 soldiers deserted, having decided they’d be better off as farmers in France than serfs back home.

And in 1941, whole Soviet divisions would joyously march into German captivity. In the first six months of the war the Nazis took over four million prisoners, and many of them sought their imprisonment voluntarily.

After the war, those survivors who weren’t delivered to Stalin’s executioners by the Americans and the British, settled all over the world. Their descendants can be found as far as Patagonia and Tasmania, to say nothing of Western Europe and North America.

There they rub shoulders with the descendants of the millions who escaped from Russia after the revolution – and with a couple of million of those who, like me, got out in the 1970s and thereafter.

Russia is the most graphic example, but far from the only one. Millions escaped from religious persecution and economic hardship in Europe to North America. French Huguenots ran for their lives, with most settling in England – and 200,000 Frenchmen have followed in their footsteps in the last few years. And if we look at the low-rent parts of the world, mass emigration from there has never ceased.

All those migrants have had an infinite number of stories to tell, each story as different as people are, both individually as persons and collectively as nations. What unites all those displaced persons is that THEY ALL HAD A BETTER PLACE TO ESCAPE TO.

This is a sine qua non of successful emigration – and an option that, alas, doesn’t exist for the British.

“China or somewhere like that” proposed as a possible haven by Lord Sugar doesn’t work. After all, Corbyn’s government would be likely to turn Britain into a communist dictatorship but that might take a few years. China, on the other hand, is a communist dictatorship already, complete with concentration camps, government-controlled press and the general aroma of vomit that inevitably wafts through communist air.

And what’s “somewhere like that” like? Where is it? Cambodia? Vietnam? North Korea? As a veteran of two emigrations, one from Russia, the other from the United States, I can absolutely guarantee that those places wouldn’t be preferable even to Corbyn’s Britain.

Where then? Where in the modern world can one hide from the modern world? The question is tautological, and there is no possible answer.

Europe is going to the dogs, America isn’t far behind (and in any case she’s unlikely to welcome a few million Brits), nowhere in Asia would be acceptable for most of us, Israel has a restrictive immigration policy for gentiles, Australia has it for just about everyone – and who’d want to live there anyway, considering that 90 per cent of the world’s deadly creatures reside Down Under, and the humans drink vats of Foster’s?

Our best chance seems to lie in preventing the likes of Corbyn from getting anywhere near Downing Street. Perhaps Lord Sugar could contribute a few of his millions to this cause.

 

I’ve questioned Princess Michael’s judgement in the past, for example over her conducting a public affair with a young Russian ‘businessman’, who was then shot dead in the middle of Moscow. (I’m not implying a causative relationship there.)

Yet her statement on animal rights is absolutely correct in substance, if somewhat amusing in form. Animals, she said, can’t have rights because they neither pay taxes nor vote.

One can infer that HRH sees those two activities as the defining characteristics of humanity. That leaves her vulnerable to the objection that we all know people who neither vote nor pay taxes, but are still entitled to enjoying a full range of rights.

Children, for example, seldom generate taxable income and they are constitutionally prevented from voting. That, however, doesn’t mean they can’t claim (or have claimed on their behalf) most of the grown-up rights.

Also, a chap who doesn’t believe in democracy and is facing trial for life-long tax evasion still has a right to be represented by counsel in a fair and speedy trial – and not to have a confession tortured out of him.

However, while one can’t really expect intellectual rigour from HRH, her heart, now free from attachment to a Russian ‘businessman’, is in the right place. Animals don’t have, nor can possibly have, any rights.

The right to life aside, all human rights are contingent on duties. For example, take our right to be protected by the state. One of the oldest legal principles states that protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem – protection entails allegiance, and allegiance entails protection.

Hence the state can’t protect Fido because Fido can’t pledge allegiance to the state – this, unlike the truths mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence, really is self-evident. Nor can Fido have any rights contingent on duties because he has no duties.

Neither does Daisy the Cow have the right not to be eaten piece by piece. Since all our jurisprudence is ultimately rooted in Scripture, it’s useful to remember that the Bible has at least 30 verses specifically endorsing consumption of meat, starting with Genesis 3:9: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

Of course in our enlightened times scriptural morality is ignored as an annoying irrelevance. New times are supposed to produce their own morality, yet this is something they have so far lamentably failed to do.

Instead they’ve produced an infinitely expanding set of shamanistic mantras with no moral, intellectual or indeed physiological support behind them. That flings the door wide open for anyone to claim a right to anything – any wish or passion can pose first as a right and then as an entitlement.

Hence today we’re served up any number of bogus rights: to homomarriage, education, health, development of personality, leisure time, orgasms, warm and loving family or – barring that – warm and loving social services, employment, paternity leave and so forth. All of these are products of consensus; none is a natural right.

Of these, animal rights aren’t the most pernicious, but they are certainly among the most cloyingly sentimental. Sentimentality is of course the modern surrogate for sentiment, and most people no longer have a natural emetic reaction when exposed to it.

By the same token anthropomorphism has replaced anthropocentrism. We treat animals like humans because we treat humans like animals. This is the inevitable result of knocking the Judaeo-Christian feet from under our civilisation.

To wit: last April, for the first time in history a New York judge granted a writ of habeas corpus brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of two chimps, Hercules and Leo, who were being used for biomedical experiments. This was an indirect assertion that Hercules and Leo are human, or near enough to be entitled to the same rights.

Indeed, if we accept that man is nothing but so many molecules coming together over a jolly long time as a result of some kind of initial biochemical accident, then the NRP’s argument makes perfect sense.

It can be demonstrated that chimpanzees are genetically so close to humans as to make no difference. The two share 99 per cent of their active genetic material, and the genetic distance between them is a mere 0.386.

If that’s all there is to it, then chimps are practically human, even though their intelligence admittedly falls into the low end of the human range, the one inhabited by Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, Jeremy Corbyn and most supporters of Chelsea FC.

If, however, we define a human being by unfashionably referring to the part that Darwin somehow forgot to explain, then no animal comes closer to this definition than a mineral or a vegetable. That’s why anyone asserting animal rights is thereby denying our humanity, defined in the only way that has any philosophical or indeed scientific support.

That’s no doubt what Princess Michael had in mind, and I’m glad she no longer bothers her mink-adorned head with Russian ‘businessmen’. Also, I’m proud to be human in her eyes: my tax returns are up to date and, against my better judgement, I didn’t neglect to vote in the general election.